THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 


Santa  Monica  Public  Library 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/examinationofallOOIiale 


6 


\^ 


^^^^^^^ 


'^:^^=^^ 


'-y 


AN 


EXAMINATION 


OF    THE    ALLEGED 


DISCEEPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


BY 

JOHN   W.   HALEY,  M.A. 


AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY 

ALVAH   HOYEY,   D.D., 

PEOrESSOR  IN  THE  NEWTOM  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTION. 


ANDOYER: 
WARREN    F.    DRAPER, 

BOSTON:  ESTES  AND  LAUKIAT. 
1874. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874,  by 

WARREX  F.  DRAPER, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Ain>OV£Q:  PUIHTED  BY  WAUREW  V.   DnAPEB. 


PRESS,  BAND,  AVERT  *  CO. 


6S 
H33. 


INTRODUCTION. 


HAvmG  read  attentively  the  entire  manuscript  of  the  fol- 
lowing work,  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  express  my  estimate 
of  its  character  and  value.  The  topic  which  it  discusses 
certainly  merits  examination.  First,  because  of  the  bearing 
which  it  naturally  has  upon  our  confidence  in  the  Bible  as  a 
revelation  from  God ;  and  secondly,  because  of  the  prominence 
which  has  been  given  to  it  by  those  who  deny  the  truthfulness 
of  the  Bible.  These  reasons  will  be  appreciated  at  once,  and 
therefore  need  simply  to  be  stated.  Any  attemj^t  to  expand 
or  enforce  them  would  be  superfluous. 

But  hitherto  there  has  been  no  single  treatise  in  our  lan- 
guage which  could  be  said  to  discuss  the  subject  as  thoroughly 
and  minutely  as  its  importance  required.  Hence  the  need  of 
a  work  on  the  alleged  "  discrepancies  of  the  Bible,"  adapted  to 
the  wants  of  men  at  the  present  time  and  taking  due  account 
of  modern  investigation  and  discovery.  Such  a  work,  it  seems 
to  me,  has  been  produced  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Haley  —  a  work 
almost  equally  adapted  to  meet  the  wants  of  scholars  and  of  the 
people ;  for  on  the  one  hand  it  is  learned  and  exact,  while  on 
the  other  it  is  perspicuous  and  interesting. 

The  author  has  made  himself  familiar  with  the  literature  of 
the  subject  in  various  languages,  and,  with  a  wise  ^^reference 
of  truth  to  originality,  has  given  the  suggestions  of  others 
whenever  those  suggestions  appeared  to  him  worthy  of  special 
consideration.  Thus  a  great  amount  of  sound  learning  is 
comprehended  within  the  limits  of  a  single  volume. 

Moreover,  the  statements  of  tlie  author  aj)pear  to  be  unusu- 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

ally  exact.  This  is  a  result  of  painstaking  care  and  resolute 
candor,  of  a  fixed  purpose  to  spare  no  labor  that  might  tend  to 
the  perfection  of  the  work,  and  of  an  equally  fixed  purpose 
to  avoid  everything  sectarian,  as  likely  to  interfere  with  its 
usefulness. 

The  style  of  the  author  is  unifopmly  clear  and  forcible.  He 
comes  to  the  point  at  once,  and  either  removes  the  difficulty,  or 
at  least  shows  the  reader  what  it  is,  and  how  the  writer  would 
dispose  of  it.  This  is  an  admirable  quality  in  such  a  treatise. 
If  the  least  circumlocution  were  allowed  the  discussion  might 
become  tiresome ;  but,  carried  forward  in  the  direct  and  vigorous 
language  of  Mr.  Haley,  it  is  constantly  attractive.  The  inves- 
tigation is  made  hiteresting  by  the  sense  of  progress  which  it 
awakens.  The  reader  feels  that  he  is  moving  on,  and  the 
danger  to  which  he  is  exposed  is  that  of  advancing  too  rapidly 
and  eagerly,  rather  than  too  slowly  and  reluctantly.  This, 
however,  is  a  danger  which  every  reader  is  hapjiy  to  incur. 

The  question  of  discrepancies  is  a  question  of  interpretation, 
and  it  could  hardly  be  expected  that  any  two  persons  would 
always  agree  in  their  method  of  reconciling  statements  which 
seem  to  be  discordant.  I  do  not  in  every  instance  prefer  the 
explanation  which  Mr.  Haley  seems  to  prefer ;  but  the  clearness 
and  soberness  of  his  interpretations  entitle  them  to  respect  in 
all  cases,  and  to  adoption  in  most.  It  is,  therefore,  a  pleasure 
to  commend  his  work  to  the  notice  of  the  public,  and  especially 
to  the  attention  of  those  who  for  any  reason  wish  to  examine 
the  claims  of  the  Bible,  as  a  Divine  revelation,  to  our  confidence. 

ALVAH    HOVEY. 
Newton  Centre,  Jnne,  1874. 


PREFACE. 


In  making  the  follo'wing  contribution  to  the  literature  of 
Christian  Apologetics,  a  brief  explanation  may  be  in  place. 

The  author  was  moved  to  prepare  and  publish  the  present 
volume  by  the  circulation  of  a  pamphlet,  in  a  certain  parish, 
setting  forth  in  a  striking  and  plausible  manner  the  so-called 
"  self-contradictions  of  the  Bible."  This  production,  cunnmgly 
adapted  to  deceive  the  ignorant  and  unwary,  was  reviewed  by 
me  in  a  course  of  Sabbath-evening  lectures,  which  form  the 
nucleus  of  the  present  work.  The  pamphlet  just  mentioned, 
with  many  others  of  a  similar  character,  I  afterwards  found  to 
be  the  fruits  of  an  organized  and  systerdatic  plan  to  poison  the 
public  mind  by  scattering  broadcast,  in  the  cars  and  upon  steam- 
boats, and  in  other  places  of  public  resort,  as  well  as  through 
tlie  mails,  a  cheap  and  virulent  infidel  literature.  That  these 
nefarious  attempts  result,  in  far  too  many  cases,  in  subverting 
the  religious  faith  and  the  morals  of  the  young,  there  can  be 
no  question.  And  the  means  employed  by  the  friends  of  virtue 
for  exposing  and  defeating  these  *'  devices  of  vSatan  "  seem,  T 
regret  to  say,  less  etlicieiit  than  is  desirable. 

During  my  investigation  of  the  subject  I  have  been  impressed 
with  the  fact  that  the  so-called  "discrepancies"  of  the  Bible 
have  failed  to  receive  due  consideration  by  evangelical  authors. 
The  literature  of  the  subject  is  comparatively  meagre  and 
anti(juated.  True,  the  discrepancies  are  discussed  to  some 
extent  in  the  various  Harmonies,  Introductions,  and  Com- 
mentaries, but,  for  the  most  part,  quite  incidentally.  "Works 
exclusively  devoted  to  the  topic  in  question  are  few  in  number 


VI  PEEFACE. 

and  of  comparatively  remote  date ;  hence,  being  scarce  and  of 
high  price,  they  are  practically  inaccessible  to  most  students  of 
'the  Bible.  And  were  they  within  reach,  they  would  be  found 
altogether  behind  the  scholarship  of  the  age.  /  know  of  no 
work,  ancient  or  modern,  which  covers  the  whole  ground, 
treating  the  subject  comprehensively  yet  concisely,  and  which  is, 
at  the  same  time,  adapted  to  general  circulation.  Whoever 
will  examine  the  appended  Bibliogi-aphy  will  very  probably  be 
convinced  that  there  is  a  demand  for  a  work  of  the  kind  just 
mentioned.  To  supply  in  some  degree  this  want  is  the  aim  of 
the  present  volume.  The  measure  of  the  author's  success  must 
be  determined  by  the  reader. 

Some  persons  may,  perchance,  question  the  wisdom  of  pub- 
lishing a  work  in  which  the  difficulties  of  scripture  are  brought 
together  and  set  forth  so  plainly.  They  may  think  it  better  to 
suppress,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  knowledge  of  these  things. 
The  author  does  not  sympathize  with  any  such  timid  policy. 
He  counts  it  the  duty  of  the  Christian  scholar  to  look  difficulties 
and  objections  squarely  in  the  face.  Nothing  is  to  be  gained 
by  overlooking,  evading,  or  shrinking  from  them.  Truth  has 
no  cause  to  fear  scrutiny,  however  rigid  and  searching.  Besides, 
the  enemies  of  the  Bible  will  not  be  silent,  even  if  its  friends 
should  hold  their  peace.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 
following  "  discrejiancies  "  are  not  now  published  for  the  Jirst 
time.  They  are  gathered  from  books  and  pamphlets  which 
are  already  extensively  circulated.  The  poison  demands  an 
antidote.  The  remedy  ^lould  be  carried  wherever  the  disease 
has  made  its  blighting  way. 

Witli  such  views  as  these  I  issue  this  humble  volume.  Such 
as  it  is,  making  small  claim  to  originality  and  literary  nierit, 
it  is  committed  to  the  pnl)lic.  If  it  shall  help  to  vindicate  the 
Bible  from  tlic  reproaches  and  misrepresentations  of  its  enemies, 
and  to  solve  doubts  in  the  minds  of  honest  inquirers,  the 
author's  object  will  have  been  attained. 

Not  proposing  a  discussion  of  all  the  difficult  questions  which 


PREFACE.  Vll 

arise  in  studying  the  Bible,  I  have  restricted  my  attention  to 
the  so-called  "  discrepancies,"  that  is,  to  those  cases  in  which 
the  statements  or  narratives  of  the  Bible  are  said  to  conflict 
with  one  another.  I  have  kept  within  the  Bible.  Cases  in 
which  the  scriptures  seem  at  variance  with  secular  history  or 
with  science  have  been  left  to  other  and  abler  hands.  I  have 
dealt  only  with  those  in  which  the  book  appears  inconsistent 
with  itself.  All  cases  of  the  latter  kind  which  were  of  any 
importance,  or  which  could  perplex  an  honest  inquirer  of 
ordinary  intelligence,  I  have  aimed  to  include ;  ^  and  if  any  such 
have  been  omitted,  I  regret  the  oversight. 

In  the  i^reparation  of  tliis  volume,  I  first  read  carefully  the 
works  of  a  large  number  of  English,  German,  tind  French 
rationalists  and  infidels,  with  a  view  to  gather  up  all  the  "  dis- 
crepancies "  which  they  adduce  from  the  scriptures.  Also,  the 
numerous  publications  of  kindred  character — books,  pamphlets, 
and  printed  sheets  —  which  have  been  put  forth  by  American 
sceptics  were  sedulously  collected  and  collated.  This  being 
done,  my  next  care  was  to  classify  and  solve  these  discrepancies. 
In  this  process  I  have,  as  will  be  seen,  laid  under  contribution 
a  large  number  of  critics  and  commentators,  ancient  and 
modern ;  in  a  word,  I  have  gathered  from  every  source  what- 
ever seemed  pertinent  and  satisfactory.^ 

One  feature  of  the  book,  to  which  the  reader's  attention  is 
particularly  invited,  is  the  copious  quotations  made  with  the 
view  to  exhibit  tlie  unanimity  of  scholars  upon  certain  im- 
portant points.  For  this  purpose,  and  generally,  an  author's 
exact  words  could  not  fail  to  be  more  satisfactory  to  the  reader 
than  a  mere  reference  would  be.  That  this  copiousness  of 
citiition  gives  to  certain  portions  of  the  book  the  aspect  of  a 

'  The  whole  numl)cr  of  cases  treated  is  nearly  nine  liiindrcd. 

-  In  order  to  avoid  increasing  the  size  and  price  of  the  liook,  it  has  been 
found  expedient  to  omit  an  extended  "List  of  Authorities"  which  had 
been  prepared.  This  omission  is  the  less  to  be  refxretted  since  aliundant 
references  ai-e  {jiven  throughout  tlic  work. 


vm  PREFACE. 

compilation  is  a  circumstance  which  I  have  neither  sought  to 
avoid,  nor  need  to  excuse.  Indeed,  my  aim  throughout  has 
been  not  originality,  but  truth  ;  not  so  much  to  produce  new 
ideas,  as  to  present  the  best  ideas  pertaining  to  the  subject 
under  consideration. 

The  texts  quoted  within  have  been  arranged  in  such  a 
manner  that  the  reader  can  see  at  a  glance  the  antithesis  or 
contradiction  in  each  case.  As  Mr.  Andrews  ^  has  remarked, 
a  great  point  is  gained  when  we  are  able  to  see  just  what  the 
amount  of  the  discrepancy  or  contradiction,  if  it  really  exists, 
is.  But  then,  in  contrasting  isolated  texts  or  phrases,  the 
divergence  often  seems  greater  than  it  actually  is,  because  the 
modifying  jiower  of  the  context  and  the  general  scope  of  the 
writer's  argument  fail  to  be  appreciated  by  the  reader.  Hence, 
in  order  that  a  text  may  be  seen  in  its  true  bearings  and 
relations,  —  in  its  proper  framework,  —  it  has  sometimes  been 
deemed  necessary  to  extend  the  citation  somewhat  beyond  the 
antithetic  words.  On  the  other  hand,  to  save  space,  we  have, 
in  cases  where  the  connection  of  thought  would  not  thereby 
be  destroyed,  omitted  subordinate  clauses,  at  the  same  time 
indicating  the  omission  in  the  usual  manner. 

That  the  adoption  of  the  alphabetical  order  of  arrangement 
has  resulted  in  giving  to  some  chapters  a  disconnected  and 
fragmentary  appearance  is  obvious.  But  it  was  thought  that 
any  other  method  of  classification  would  probably  be'  open  to 
equally  great  objections  of  some  kind;  and  that,  since  the 
book  might  be  used  rather  for  reference  than  for  consecutive 
reading,  the  lack  of  chronological  sequence  would  not  materially 
detract  from  its  utility. 

The  work  is  intended  not  so  much  for  scholars  and  critics  as 
for  the  common  peoi)le;  yet  it  is  hoped  that  the  learned  reader 
will  feel  that  the  author  has  substantiated  his  positions  by  the 
quotations  from  and  references  to  the  highest  critical  au- 
thorities, which  occur  upon  nearly  every  page. 

'  Life  of  Our  Lord,  p.  xvi. 


PREFACE.  IX 

Not  infrequently  several  solutions  of  a  difficulty  are  given, 
leaving  tlie  reader  to  choose  for  himself.  Of  course,  not  all 
possible  solutions  are  adduced,  but  merely  those  which  seem 
most  reasonable. 

On  the  principle  that  the  concessions  of  its  adversaries  are 
weighty  arguments  in  favor  of  the  Bible,  these  have  been  made 
use  of,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  occasion  presented  itself. 

As  to  works  originally  pubhshed  in  foreign  languages,  when- 
ever approved  English  translations  exist,  I  have  generally 
followed  the  latter,  instead  of  giving  my  own  version. 

Care  has  been  taken  to  secure  accuracy  in  the  numerous 
quotations  and  references ;  yet  it  would  be  vain  to  claim  ex- 
emption from  what  Porson  terms  "  the  common  lot  of  author- 
ship." If  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy  has  been  attained, 
this  is  the  utmost  I  can  expect. 

I  cannot  omit  to  express  here  my  gratitude  to  Prof.  Edwards 
A.  Park,  D.D.,  for  the  cordial  and  unvarying  interest  which 
he  has  manifested  in  the  present  work,  for  timely  encourage- 
ment, and  for  practical  and  valuable  advice  received  by  me 
during  its  jireparation .  But  for  him  the  work  would  have 
been  published,  if  at  all,  in  a  less  com^jlete  and  satisfactory 
form. 

My  indebtedness  to  Prof.  A.  Hovey,  D.D.,  will  be  sufficiently 
evinced  by  the  very  appreciative  Introduction  which  he  has 
kindly  furnished  for  the  volume. 

I  am  also  under  obligation  to  Prof.  Ezra  Abbot,  LL.D., 
of  Cambridge,  for  consenting  to  revise  and  complete  the  bib- 
liography which  I  had  prepared;  to  Rev.  C.  F.  P.  Bancroft, 
Principal  of  Phillips  Academy,  for  procuring  in  Europe  for 
my  use  rare  and  important  works  pertaining  to  my  theme, 
and  for  criticisms  upon  portions  of  the  manuscript;  to  Rev. 
Archibald  Duff,  Jr.,  of  Halle,  for  explorations  on  my  behalf 
among  the  bookstores  and  libraries  of  Germany ;  to  Rev.  D. 
P.  Lindsley,  of  Andover,  for  preparing  the  full  and  accurate 
Index  of   Texts  which  is  contained  in  this  volume ;    to  Rev. 


X  PREFACE. 

Selah  Slerrill,  of  Andover  for  the  free  use  of  his  vahiable 
private  library ;  tO  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  D.D.,  for  various 
courtesies  during  my  investigations ;  and  to  several  other  literary 
gentlemen  for  manifesting  a  gratifying  interest  in  the  ^jrogress 
of  the  work. 

It  should,  however,  be  added  that  no  person  besides  the 
author  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  any  opinion  or  statement 
expressed  in  the  book,  except  in  those  cases  where  other 
writers  are  quoted,  or  reference  is  made  to  them.  The  plan 
and  the  execution  of  the  work  are  my  own.  That  it  has  cost 
me  an  immense  amount  of  labor  and  research  will  be  most 
readily  conceded  by  those  most  competent  to  judge. 

Moreover,  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  the  more  thoroughly 
I  have  investigated  the  subject  the  more  clearly  have  I  seen 
the  flimsy  and  disingenuous  character  of  the  objections  alleged 
by  infidels.  And,  whether  or  not  my  labors  shall  result  in 
inducing  a  similar  belief  in  the  minds  of  my  readers,  I  cannot 
but  avow,  as  the  issue  of  my  investigations,  the  profound  con- 
viction that  every  difficulty  and  discrepancy  in  the  scriptures 
is,  and  will  yet  be  seen  to  be,  capable  of  a  fair  and  reasonable 
solution. 

Finally,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Bible  is  neither 
dependent  upon  nor  affected  by  the  success  or  failure  of  my 
book.  AVhatever  may  become  of  the  latter,  whatever  may  be 
the  verdict  passed  upon  it  by  an  intelligent  public,  the  Bible 
will  stand.  In  the  ages  yet  to  be,  when  its  present  assailants 
and  defenders  are  mouldering  in  the  dust,  and  when  their  very 
names  are  forgotten,  the  sacred  volume  will  be,  as  it  has  been 
(luring  the  centuries  past,  the  guide  and  solace  of  unnumbered 
millions  of  our  race. 

J.  W.  H. 

Andovkr,  Mass.,  Juno,  1874. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  by  Prof.  Hovey, 
Fbeface, 

PART    I. 

CHAPTER  I. 
Origin  of  the  Discrepancies, 

1.  Difference  of  dates  of  passages,    . 

2.  Differences  of  authorship,    . 

3.  Differences  of  stand-point  or  of  object, 

4.  Different  methods  of  arrangement, 

5.  Different  methods  of  computation, 

6.  Peculiarities  of  Oriental  idiom,    . 

7.  Plurality  of  names  or  sjiionymes, 

8.  Diverse  meanings  of  same  word, 

9.  Errors  in  the  manuscripts,  . 
10.  Imagination  of  critic, 

CHAPTER  n. 
Design  op  the  Discrepancies, 

1.  To  stimulate  the  intellect,   .... 

2.  Illustrate  analogy  of  Bible  and  nature, 
8.  Disprove  collusion  of  sacred  writers,    . 

4.  Lead  to  value  the  spirit  above  the  letter  of  the 

5.  Serve  as  a  test  of  moral  character, 

CHAPTER  m. 
Results  of  the  Discrepancies, 

1.  Text  of  Bible  not  unsettled, 

2.  Moral  influence  of  the  Bible  not  impaired,  . 


Bible, 


80-40 
30 
33 
36 
37 
38 

41-54 

41 

.       60 


xu 


CONTENTS. 


PART    I  I. 

CHAPTER  I. 
Doctrinal  Discrepancies, 
I.     Concerning  God,     . 
II.     Concerning  Christ, 

III.  Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit, 

IV.  Concerning  the  Scriptures, 
V.     Concerning  Man  in  relation  to  the  Present, 

VI.     Concerning  Man  in  relation  to  the  Future, 

CHAPTER  n. 
Ethical  Discrepancies,    . 
I.     Duty  of  Man  to  God, 
n.     Duty  of  Man  to  himself, 
m.     Duty  of  Man  to  his  fellow-men, 

CHAPTER  m. 
Historical  Discrepancies, 

I.     Pertaining  to  Persons,     . 
H.     Pertaining  to  Places, 
HI.     Pertaining  to  Numbers,  . 
IV.     Pertaining  to  Time, 
V.     Miscellaneous, 


BiBLIOGKAPniCAL   APPENDIX, 

Index  of  Scripture  Citations, 
General  Index, 


55-218 
55 
106 
139 
143 
168 
183 


219-311 
.  219 
.     245 

.     255 


312-436 
.  312 
.  863 
.  880 
.  892 
.  427 


437 
443 
462 


DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
I>^Il  T     I. 


CHAPTER    I. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 

"  God  reveals  himself  in  his  word,  as  he  does  in  his  works. 
In  both  we  see  a  self-revealing,  self-concealing  God,  wlio 
makes  himself  known  only  to  those  who  earnestly  seek  him ; 
in  both  we  find  stimulants  to  faith  and  occasions  for  unbelief ; 
in  both  we  find  contradictions,  whose  higher  harmony  is  hidden, 
except  from  him  who  gives  up  his  whole  mind  in  reverence ;  in 
both,  in  a  word,  it  is  a  law  of  revelation  that  the  heart  of  man 
should  be  tested  in  receiving  it ;  and  that  in  the  spiritual  life, 
as  well  as  in  the  bodily,  man  must  eat  his  bread  in  the  sweat 
of  his  brow." 

In  these  significant  words  of  the  sainted  Neander  ^  are 
brought  to  view  the  existence  and  tlic  remedy  of  certain  didi- 
culties  encountered  by  the  student  of  scripture. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  present  volume  to  follow  out  the  line 
of  thought  indicated  by  the  learned  Germart  divine — to  survey 
somewhat  in  detail  the  discrepancies  of  scripture,  and  to  suggest, 
in  the  several  cases,  fair  and  reasonable  solutions. 

That  no  candid  and  intelligent  student  of  the  Bil)le  will 
deny  that  it  contains  numerous  "  discrepancies,"  that  its  state- 
ments, taken  prima  facie,  not  infnMjuently  conflict  with  or 
contradict  one    another,  may  safely  be   presumed.     This  fact 

'  Life  of  Christ,  Preface  to  first  edition. 


'2  .  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

has  been  more  or  less  recognized  by  Christian  scholars  in  all 
ages. 

Of  the  early  writers,  Oiygen^  declares  that  if  any  one  should 
carefully  examine  the  Gospels  in  respect  to  their  historic 
disagreement,  he  would  grow  dizzy-headed,  and,  attaching  him- 
self to  one  of  them,  he  would  desist  from  the  attempt  to  estab- 
lish all  as  true,  or  else  he  would  regard  the  four  as  true,  yet 
not  in  their  external  forms. 

Chrysostom  '■^  regards  the  discrepancies  as  really  valuable  as 
proofs  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers. 

Augustine^  often  recurs,  in  his  writings,  to  the  discrepancies, 
and  handles  many  cases  with  great  skill  and  felicity. 

Some  twenty -five  years  since,  that  eminent  biblical  critic, 
]Moses  Stuurt,*  whose  candor  was  commensurate  with  his  erudi- 
tion, acknowledged  that  "  in  our  present  copies  of  the  scri^Jturcs 
there  are  some  discrepancies  between  different  portions  of  them, 
which  no  learning  nor  ingenuity  can  reconcile."  ^ 

To  much  the  same  effect.  Archbishop  Whately ''  observes : 
"That  the  apparent  contradictions  of  scripture  are  numerous — 
that  the  instruction  conveyed  by  them,  if  they  be  indeed  de- 
signed for  such  a  purpose,  is  furnished  in  abundance  —  is  too 
notorious  to  need  being  much  insisted  on." 

►Similarly  says  Dr.  Chai'les  Hodge : '  "It  would  require  not  a 
volume,  but  volumes,  to  discuss  all  the  cases  of  alleged  discrep- 
ancies." 

Such  being  the  concessions  made  by  Christian  scholars,  it 
can  occasion  no  surj)rise  to  lind  sceptical  authors  expatiating 
upon  tlic    "  glaring   inconsistencies,"  "  self-contradictions,"  and 

'  (Joinin.  in  i;viiniri'liiiiii  ■loiimiis,  Vol.  i.  p.  -7!),  Lominat/.scli's  edition. 

-  Wiirinirtoii  on  liispiriUioti,  p.  •'<(). 

'  See  Ualms  in  appended  l5il)lio;j;r;iphy. 

*  Crit.  I  list,  and  DcleiKe  of  ().  1'.  Canon,  p.  193.     lieviscd  cd.  p.  17!). 

''  Wiien  \vc  ('(nKsiiler  the  niarkeil  protrress  of  sacred  philoloy,y  and  allied 
si-icnccs  during  tlie  last  quarter  of  a  century,  vvc  cannot  doulit  that  ilio 
I'rolessor  would,  were  he  now  llvini;,  essentially  modify  this  opinii)n. 

"  On  l)illi<'uliies  in  WritiiiiiS  of  St.  I'aul;   i;ssay  7,  Sect.  4. 

'  Tlicolo;;y,  Vol.  i.,  p.  lO'J. 


ORIGIN    OP    TIIR    DISCREPANCIES.  6 

"  manifest  discrepancies "  of  the  Bible,  and  incessantly  urging 
these  as  so  many  proofs  of  its  untrustworthiness  and  of  its 
merely  human  origin.  The  pages  of  the  German  rationalists, 
and  of  their  English  and  American  disciples  and  copyists,  abound 
with  arguments  of  this  charactei'. 

Of  the  importance  of  our  theme,  little  need  be  said.  Clearly 
it  bears  a  close  and  vital  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
God,  who  is  wisdom  and  truth,  can  neither  lie  nor  contradict 
liimself.  Hence,  should  it  be  discovered  that  falsehoods  or 
actual  contradictions  exist  in  the  Bible,  our  conclusion  must  be, 
that,  at  any  i-ate,  these  things  do  not  come  from  God ;  that  so 
far  the  Bible  is  not  divinely  inspu-ed.  We  see,  therefore,  the 
need  of  a  patient  and  impartial  examination  of  alleged  false- 
hoods and  contradictions,  in  order  that  our  theory  of  inspiration 
may  be  made  to  conform  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Yet  we  must  guard  against  the  conclusion  that,  since  we 
cannot  solve  certain  ditiiculties,  they  are  therefore  insoluble. 
This  inference  —  to  which  minds  of  a  certain  temper  are  pe- 
cidiarly  liable  —  savors  so  strongly  of  egotism  and  dogmatism 
as  to  be  utterly  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  true  scholarship. 

As  in  all  otJier  departments  of  sacred  criticism,  so  in  the 
treatment  of  the  discrepancies,  there  is  a  demand  for  reverent, 
yet  imflinching  thorouglmess  and  fidelity. 

An  important  preliminary  question  relates  to  the  OinoiN  of 
the  Discrepancies.  To  what  causes  are  they  to  be  referred  ? 
From  what  sources  do  they  arise  ? 

1.  Many  of  the  so-called  discre2)ancies  are  obviously  atti'ibut- 
ablcto  a  difference  in  the  dates  of  the  discordant  ])assagcs. 
]N'othing  is  more  common  than  that  a  description  or  statement, 
true  and  pertinent  at  one  time,  should  at  a  later  period,  and  in 
:i  (lill'erent  state  of  affairs,  be  found  irrelevant  or  inaccurate. 
(  liaiige  of  circumstances  necessitates  a  change  of  phraseology. 
Numerous  illustrations  of  this  principle  will  be  found  in  the 
following  pages. 


4  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

A  certain  infidel,  bent  upon  making  the  Bible  contradict 
itself,  contrasts  the  two  passages :  "■  God  saw  everything  that 
he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good  "  ;  and  "  It  repented 
the  Lord  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved 
him  at  his  heart."  ^  Taking  these  texts  out  of  their  connection, 
and,  with  characteristic  fairness,  making  no  mention  of  the  in- 
terval of  time  which  divided  them,  he  thus  seeks  to  make  it 
appear  that  the  Bible  represents  God  as,  at  the  same  time, 
satisfied  and  dissatisfied  with  his  works.  Had  the  unscrupulous 
pamphleteer  told  liis  readers  that  the  fall  of  man  and  a  period 
of  some  fifteen  hundred  years  intervened  between  the  two 
ejiochs  respectively  referred  to  in  these  texts, liis  "discrepancy" 
would  have  become  too  transparent  to  serve  liis  purpose. 

Obviously,  after  man  had  fallen,  God  could  no  longer  be 
"  satisfied  "  with  him,  unless  a  corresponding  change  had  taken 
place  in  himself.  We  thus  see  that  differences  of  date  and  cir- 
cumstances may  perfectly  explain  apparent  discrepancies,  and 
remove  every  vestige  of  contradiction. 

May  not  these  differences  also  furnish  a  hint  toward  the 
solution  of  certain  moral  difliculties  in  the  scriptures  ?  We 
find  some  of  tlie  patriarchs  represented  as  good  men,  yet  occa- 
sionally practising  deceit,  polygamy,  and  other  sins  which  are 
discountenanced  in  the  later  books  of  the  liible.  Is  not  the 
rule  of  human  conduct,  to  some  extent,  a  relative  one,  graduated 
according  to  man's  knowledge,  circumstances,  and  ability?  Did 
not  lie  who  revealed  himself  "  in  many  portions  and  in  divers 
manners "  ^  make  the  revelation  of  human  duty  in  much  the 
same  way  —  not  as  with  the  lightning's  ])]inding  flash,  but  like 
the  morning  upon  the  mountains,  with  a  slow  and  gradual 
illumination?^ 

In  the  comparatively  unenlightened  times  in  which  many  of 
the  Old  Testament  saints  lived,  many  faults  and  errors  of  theirs 
may  have  been  mercifully  and  wisely  passed  by.     Those  "times 

'  Gen.  i.  31  and  vi.  6.  =>  Ilcb.  i.  1,  so  Alford. 

^  See  lierniird,  I'rogress  of  Uoct.  in  New  Test.,  passim. 


ORIGIN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  5 

of  ignorance"  God  "  winked  at"^  —  "  over-looked."  Acts  com- 
mitted in  that  twilight  of  the  world,  in  the  childhood  of  the 
race,  must  be  looked  at  m  the  light  of  that  period.  Nothuig 
conld  be  more  ruijust  or  unreasonable  than  to  try  the  patriarchs 
by  the  ethical  standard  of  a  later  age. 

Dr.  Thomas  Arnold^  deems  that  the  truest  and  most  faithful 
representation  of  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  which  leads  us  to 
think  of  "  a  state  of  society  very  little  advanced  in  its  knowledge 
of  the  duties  of  man  to  man,  and  even,  in  some  resjiects,  of  the 
duties  of  man  to  God  —  a  state  of  society  in  which  slavery. 
polygamy,  and  private  revenge  were  held  to  be  perfectly  lawful, 
and  wliich  was  accustomed  to  make  a  very  wide  distinction 
between  false  speaking  and  false  swearing."  He  deprecates 
the  fear  that  we  are  "  lowering  the  early  scripture  liistory,  if 
we  speak  of  the  actors  in  it  as  men  possessing  far  less  than  a 
Christian's  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong."  Professor  Stuart,' 
likewise,  repudiates  the  notion  of  the  absolute  perfection  of  the 
eai'lier  dispensation,  and  adds :  "  It  is  only  a  relative  perfection 
that  the  Old  Testament  can  claim ;  and  this  is  comjirised  in  the 
fact  that  it  answered  the  end  for  wliich  it  was  given.  It  was 
given  to  the  world,  or  to  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its  minority." 
The  Professor's  conclusion  is,  that  in  the  early  ages,  "  with  the 
exception  of  such  sins  as  were  higlily  dishonorable  to  God  and 
injurious  to  the  welfare  of  men,  the  rules  of  duty  were  not  in 
all  cases  strictly  drawn."  * 

Now,  since  our  virtue  must  be  judged  of  in  relation  to  the 
amount  of  knowledge  we  possess,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  men  are 
styled  "  good  "  who  live  according  to  the  light  they  have,  even 
though  that  light  may  be  comparatively  feeble.  Therefore, 
previous  to  pronouncing  upon  the  moral  character  of  a  man  or 
an  act,  we  must  take  into  consideration  the  date  of  the  act,  or 

^  "  In  this  word  lie  treasures  of  mercy  for  those  who  lived  in  the  times 
of  ignorance."  —  Alford  on  Acts  xvii.  30. 
^  Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  149,  150  (N.  Y.  edition). 
^  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  415.    Revised  ed.  pp.  387,  388. 
*  See  further,  under  Ethical  Discrepancies,  "  Enemies  cursed." 


6  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  time  ■when  the  man  lived,  that  we  may  judge  the  man  or 
the  act  by  the  proper  standard.  Tliis  simple  principle  will 
remove  many  otherwise  formidable  difficulties.^ 

2.  Were  it  not  for  the  perversity  and  disingenuousness 
exhibited  by  certain  writers  in  dealing  with  this  topic,  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  assign  differences  of  authorship  as  a 
fruitful  source  of  discrepancies.  We  find  recorded  in  the  Bible 
the  words  of  God  and  of  good  men,  as  well  as  some  of  the 
sayings  of  Satan  and  of  wicked  men.  Now,  a  collision  between 
these  two  classes  of  utterances  will  not  seem  strange  to  him 
who  is  cognizant  of  the  antagonism  of  good  and  evil.  For 
example,  we  read,  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die ; "  and  "  Ye  shall  not 
surely  die."  ^  When  we  call  to  mind  that  the  former  are  the 
words  of  God,  the  latter  those  of  Satan,  we  are  at  no  loss  to 
account  for  the  incongruity. 

The  question  of  the  respective  authorship  of  conflicting  texts 
is  an  imjwrtant  one :  "  Whose  are  these  sayings  ?  "  "  Are  they 
recorded  as  inspired  language,  or  is  one  or  more  of  them 
inserted  as  a  mere  matter  of  history  ? "  "  Does  the  sacred 
writer  endorse,  or  merely  narrate,  these  statements  ? "  The 
answer  to  these  simple  questions  will  often  be  the  only  solution 
whicli  the  supposed  discrepancy  needs. 

With  regard  to  utterances  clearly  referal)le  to  inspired 
sources,  yet  which  apparently  disagree,  several  tilings  are  to  be 
noticed : 

(1)  Tlie  same  idea,  in  substance,  may  be  couched  in  several 
different  forms  of  i)hraseology.  Thus  we  may  vary  the  Mosaic 
j}rohibition  of  murder:  "Thou  shalt  not  kill";  "  Do  not  kill"; 
'"■  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder."  Any  one  of  these  statements  is 
sufliciently  exact.  No  one  of  them  would  be  regarded  by  any 
sensible  person  as  a  misstatement  of  tlie  precept.  They  all 
convey  substantially  tlie  same  idea. 

(2)  Inspiration    does  not  destroy  the   individuality   of   the 

'  *'  DistinRuitc  tcmi)ora,"  says  Au;j;ustinc,  "  et  conoor(lal)unt  scripturae " ; 
"  Distinfiuish  as  to  times,  and  the  scriptures  will  harmonize." 
*  Gen.  ii.  17  and  iii.  4. 


ORIGIN    OP   THK    DISCREPANCIES.  7 

writers.  It  deals  jirimarily  with  ideas,  rather  than  with  words. 
It  suggests  ideas  to  the  mind  of  the  writer,  allowing  him, 
generally,  to  clothe  them  in  his  own  language.  In  this  way  his 
individuality  is  preserved,  and  his  mental  peculiarities  and 
habits  of  thought  make  themselves  felt  in  his  writings.  On 
this  prmciple  we  account  for  the  marked  difference  of  style 
among  the  sacred  writers,  as  well  as  for  their  occasional  diver- 
gences in  setting  forth  the  same  idea  or  m  relating  the  same 
circumstance.^ 

(3)  Inspiration  need  not  always  tread  in  its  own  track,  or 
follow  the  same  routine  of  words.  A  writer  may,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  take  the  language  of  a  former 
mspired  author,  and  modify  it  to  suit  his  own  purpose.  Thus 
the  New  Testament  writers  often  quote  those  of  the  Old.  They 
grasp  the  sense,  the  ground-thought,  of  their  predecessors,  and 
then  mould  that  thought  into  such  forms  as  shall  best  meet  the 
needs  of  the  later  age  for  which  they  write.  This  simple  prin- 
ciple relieves  the  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  citations  in  the  New. 

3.  Other  seeming  disagreements  are  occasioned  by  differences 
of  stand-point  or  of  object  on  the  part  of  the  respective  authors. 
Truth  is  many-sided,  flinging  back  from  each  of  its  countless 
facets  a  ray  of  different  hue.  As  Whately  says,  "  Single  texts 
of  scripture  may  be  so  interpreted,  if  not  compared  together, 
and  explained  by  each  other,  as  to  contradict  one  another,  and 
to  be  each  one  of  them  at  variance  with  the  truth.  Tlie 
scriptures,  if  so  studied,  will  no  less  mislead  you  than  if  they 
were  actually  false ;  for  half  the  truth  will  very  often  amount 
to  al)solute  falsehood."  ^ 

Often,  in  looking  from  different  positions,  or  at  different 
objects,  we  follow  lines  of  thought,  or  employ  language,  which 
seems  inconsistent  with  something  elsewhere  propounded  by 
us ;  yet  there  may  be  no  real  inconsistency  in  the  case.     Thus 

^  Sec  several  striking:  cases  under  "  Scriptures,  —  Quotations." 
-  Future  State,  Lcct.  VI.,  p.  120  (I'hila.  edition). 


8  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

we  say,  in  the  same  breath,  "  Man  is  mortal,"  and  "  Man  is 
immortal."  Both  statements  are  true,  each  from  its  own  point 
of  view ;  they  do  not  collide  in  the  least.  In  respect  to  his 
material,  visible,  tangible  organism,  he  is  mortal ;  but  with 
reference  to  the  deathless,  intelligent  spirit  within,  he  is  im- 
mortal. So  one  may  say :  "  The  people  of  this  country  are 
rulers,"  and,  "The  American  people  are  ruled."  In  the  sense 
uitended,  both  assertions  may  be  jjerfectly  coi'rect. 

In  the  "  Christian  Paradoxes,"  published  in  Basil  Montagu's 
edition  of  Lord  Bacon's  Works,  we  find  striking  contrarieties. 
Thus,  concerning  the  pious  man : 

"  He  is  one  that  fears  always,  yet  is  as  bold  as  a  lion. 

"  He  loseth  his  life,  and  gains  by  it ;  and  whilst  he  loseth  it, 
he  saveth  it. 

"  He  is  a  peacemaker,  yet  is  a  continual  fighter,  and  is  an 
irreconcilable  enemy. 

''  He  is  often  in  prison,  yet  always  at  liberty ;  a  freeman, 
though  a  servant. 

"  He  loves  not  honor  amongst  men,  yet  highly  prizeth  a 
good  name." 

In  these  cases  no  uncommon  acuteness  is  requisite  to  see  that 
there  is  no  contradiction ;  since  the  conflicting  sayings  lie  in 
dillcrent  planes  of  thought,  or  contemplate  dilferent  ends. 

The  principle  that  every  truth  presents  different  aspects,  and 
bears  different  relations,  is  one  of  great  importance.  Some- 
times these  aspects  or  relations  may  seem  inconsistent  or 
incompatible  with  each  other;  yet,  if  we  trace  back  the  divergent 
rays  to  their  source,  we  shall  Ihid  tliat  they  meet  in  a  common 
centre. 

The  principle  just  enimciated  serves  to  reconcile  the  apparent 
disagreement  between  Paul  and  James  respecting  "  faith  "  and 
"  works,"  and  to  evince,  as  will  be  seen  elsewhere,  the  profound, 
underlying  harmony  between  them.  Looking  from  different 
•l)oints  of  view,  they  present  different,  yet  not  inconsistent, 
aspects  of  the  same  great  truth. 


OEIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  9 

It  is  scarcely  needful  to  add,  that  in  studying  the  sacred 
wiitings,  we  should  carefully  look  for  and  keep  in  mind  the 
particular  point  of  view  and  the  object  of  each  of  the  authors. 
Unless  we  do  this,  we  risk  a  total  misapprehension  of  them. 
We  are  apt,  forgetting  the  long  ages  which  have  intervened,  to 
judge  these  writers  by  the  standards  of  our  own  time.  Says 
Muller  :  "  The  great  majority  of  readers  transfer  without  hesi- 
tation the  ideas  which  they  connect  with  words  as  used  in  the 
nineteenth  century  to  the  mind  of  Moses  or  liis  contempoj-aries, 
forgetting  altogether  the  distance  wMch  divides  their  language 
and  their  thoughts  from  the  thoughts  and  language  of  the  wan- 
dering tribes  of  Israel."  ^ 

This  is  a  timely  caution  against  unconsciously  confounding 
an  ancient  author's  stand-point  with  our  own.  We  may  remark, 
fm'ther,  that  the  historian's  stand-point  is  theoretically  a  neutral 
one.  So  long  as  he  keeps  to  the  mere  recital  of  facts,  he  does 
not  make  himself  responsible  in  any  degi'ee  for  the  conduct 
described  by  him.  When  he  drops  the  role  of  the  historian, 
and  assumes  that  of  the  philosopher  and  moralist,  when  he 
begins  to  deal  out  praise  or  censure,  he  may  be  held  amenable 
to  the  tribunal  of  ethics  for  the  rectitude  and  impartiality  of 
his  opinions  and  decisions. 

In  a  word,  the  Bible  writers  do  not,  by  simply  narratmg  the 
misconduct  of  other  persons,  make  themselves  in  the  slightest 
degi-ee  responsible  for  that  misconduct.  Yet  many  persons, 
who  would  not  think  of  holdmg  Macaulay  accountable  for  the 
crimes  recorded  in  his  history,  cannot,  when  they  come  to  read 
the  sacred  record,  see  the  difference  between  a  mere  historian 
and  a  partisan.  There  is  an  ai)preciable  distinction  between 
narrating  and  indorsing  an  act. 

4.  Many  other  apparent  discrepancies,  of  a  historical  char- 
acter, are  occasioned  by  the  adoption,  by  the  several  authors, 
of  different  principles  and  methods  of  arrangement.  One 
writer  follows  the  strict  chronological  order ;  another  disposes 
*  Chips  fi-om  a  German  Workshop,  i.  133  (Am.  cihtion). 


10  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE    BIBLE, 

liis  materials  according  to  the  pinnciple  of  association  of 
ideas.  One  writes  history  minutely  and  consecutively ;  another 
omits,  condenses,  or  exjiands  to  suit  his  piu'pose.  From  the 
pen  of  one  writer  we  receive  an  orderly,  well-constructed  biog- 
raphy ;  another  gives  us  merely  a  series  of  anecdotes,  grouped 
so  as  to  illustrate  some  trait,  sentiment,  or  habit  of  the  person 
described.  Thus,  in  Xenophon's  Memorabilia,  we  do  not  find 
a  proper  biogi'aphy  of  Socrates,  but  we  see  various  points  in 
his  life  and  character  set  forth  by  anecdotes  respecting  him 
and  by  reports  of  his  discussions.  These  are  "  tlu-own  together 
in  the  manner  best  suited  to  illustrate  the  different  topics, without 
regard  to  the  order  of  time  in  wliich  the  transactions  or  con- 
versations actually  took  place,  and  without  any  endeavor  to 
preserve  the  appearance  of  continuity  of  narrative."  So  our 
first  Gospel,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Stowe,^  "does  not  follow 
any  chronological  scries  of  events  or  instructions,  but  groups 
together  things  of  the  same  kind,  and  shows  by  a  series  of 
livuig  pictures  what  Christ  was  in  all  the  various  circumstances 
through  which  he  passed."  A  similar  and  intentional  disregard 
of  chronological  order  and  sequence  is  seen,  to  a  greater  or  less 
degi'ee,  in  the  three  remaining  Gospels,  and  in  other  historical 
portions  of  the  Bible. 

The  methods  of  the  several  authors  being  thus  different,  it 
caiuiot  but  be  that  their  narratives,  when  compared,  will  present 
appearances  of  dislocation,  deficiency,  redundancy,  anachronism, 
or  even  antagonism  —  one  or  all  of  these.  Now,  if  we  put 
these  authors  upon  a  Procrustean  l)ed,  and  clip  or  stretch  them 
to  suit  our  notions ;  if  we  require  them  to  narrate  jirecisely  the 
same  events,  in  precisely  the  same  order,  and  with  precisely  the 
same  fulness  or  brevity,  we  do  them  great  violence  and  in- 
justice. We  shonld  let  each  follow  his  own  method  of  arrange- 
ment, and  tell  his  story  in  his  own  way.  A  different  grouping 
of  events  does  not  necessarily  bring  one  author  into  collision 
with  another,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  both  writers  intended 

•  Orifjiri  and  History  of  P.ooks  of  Bible,  pp.  153,  154. 


ORIGIN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  11 

to  follow  the  order  of  time.  Nor  is  an  author's  omission  to 
mention  an  event  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  that  event.  It 
should  also  be  remembered  that  a  writer  may  employ  customary 
phraseology,  involving  a  historical  inaccuracy,  yet  not  be 
chargeable  with  falsehood,  inasmuch  as  he  does  not  intend  to 
teach  afty tiling  in  reference  to  the  matter.  For  examj)lc,  a 
liistorian  might  incidentally  speak  of  the  "battle  of  Bunker 
Hill,"  while  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  the  battle  was  fought 
on  Breed's  hill.  It  is  an  author's  privilege  to  accommodate 
himself  "in  this  manner,  to  prevalent  opinions  and  customary 
forms  of  speech,  provided  he  does  not  thereby  introduce  any 
material  error,  which  shall  vitiate  his  leading  design, 

5.  Other  incongruities  arise  from  the  use  of  different  modes 
of  computation,  particularly  of  reckoning  time.  Phenomena 
of  this  description  are  not  confined  to  the  scriptures,  or  to  the 
domain  of  theology.  They  are  found  in  scientific  and  other 
secular  literature.  Tlius,  one  would  think  the  number  of  the 
bones  wliich  compose  the  human  skeleton  a  very  simple  and  easily- 
settled  question ;  yet  the  most  eminent  anatomists  disagi'ee  on 
this  point.  Gray  mentions  204  bones;  Wilson,  246;  Dunglison, 
240 ;  others,  208.  There  is,  however,  no  real  discrepancy  in 
the  case,  since  these  authors  reckon  differently. 

A  historical  illustration  is  also  in  point.  The  family  record, 
in  an  old  Bible  which  belonged  to  Washington's  mother,  asserts 
that  he  was  born  "y^  11th  day  of  February,  173i."  On  the 
other  hand,  a  recent  biography  ^  of  Washington  gives  the  date 
as  "  the  22d  of  February,  1732,  New  Style."  To  those  who  un- 
derstand the  difference  between  "Old  Style"  and  "New  Style," 
this  discrepancy  of  eleven  days  will  furnish  no  difficulty.  When 
one  historian  reckons  from  one  epoch,  and  another  from  a  dif- 
ferent one,  there  will  of  necessity  be  an  apparent,  if  not  a  real, 
disagreement. 

Many  ancient  and  several  modern  nations  have  two  kinds  of 
year  in  use,  the  civil  and  the  sacred.     The  Jews  employed  both 

'  Everett's  Life  of  Washington,  pp.  19,  20. 


12  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

reckonings.  "  The  sacred  reckoning  was  that  instituted  at  the 
exodus,  according  to  wliich  the  first  month  was  Ahib ;  by  the 
civil  reckoning  the  first  month  was  the  seventh.  The  interval 
between  the  two  commencements  was  thus  exactly  half  a  year."  ^ 

"  The  ancient  Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Persians,  Syi'ians,  Phoe- 
nicians, and  Carthaginians  each  began  the  year  at  the  atltumnal 
equinox,  about  September  22.  The  Jews  also  began  their  civil 
year  at  that  time ;  but  in  their  ecclesiastical  reckoning  the  year 
dated  from  tlie  vernal  equinox,  about  March  22." 

"  Among  the  Latin  Christian  nations  there  were  seven  dif- 
ferent dates  for  the  commencement  of  the  year."  "  In  the  era 
of  Constantinople,  which  was  in  use  in  the  Byzantine  empire, 
aii<l  in  Russia  tUl  the  time  of  Peter  the  Great,  the  civil  year 
began  with  Sejitember  1,  and  the  ecclesiastical  sometimes  with 
March  21,  and  sometimes  with  April  1."'^  Even  among  us, 
the  academic  and  the  fiscal  do  not  begin  and  end  with  the  civil 
year. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  when  two  ancient  writers  fail  to 
agree  as  to  the  month  and  day  of  a  given  event,  we  must 
inquire  whether  or  not  they  employ  the  same  chronological 
reckoning.  If  not,  their  disagi'eement  furnishes  no  proof  that 
either  is  wrong.  Each,  according  to  his  own  method  of  com- 
putation, may  be  perfectly  correct.  When,  m  the  Fahrenheit 
thermometer,  the  mercury  stands  at  212  degrees,  in  the  Reaumur 
at  80,  and  in  the  Centigrade  at  100  degrees,  the  inference  is 
not  valid  that  any  one  of  the  three  instruments  is  inaccurate. 
The  different  methods  of  graduating  the  scale  account  for  the 
dilfereiit  intlications. 

It  was  one  peculiarity  of  the  Jewish  reckoning  that  frac- 
tional years  were  counted  for  whole  ones.  Lightfoot'  says 
that,  according  to  tlie  rabbins,  "  the  very  first  day  of  a  year 
may  stand  in  computation  for  that  year."     Aben  Ezra,  on  Lev. 

»  R.  S.  Poole,  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "  Year." 
"^  Appkton's  Cyclopaedia;  Article  "Calendar." 
*  llarniony  of  Now  Test.,  Section  9. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  13 

xii.  3,  says  that,  "  if  an  infant  were  born  in  the  hist  hour  of  the 
day,  such  hour  was  counted  for  one  whole  day."  A  similar 
mode  of  reckoniug  prevails  in  the  East  at  the  present  time. 
"  Thus,  the  year  ending  on  a  certain  day,  any  part  of  the  fore- 
going year  is  reckoned  a  whole  year.  A  child  born  in  the  last 
week  of  our  December  would  be  reckoned  a  year  old  on  the 
first  day  of  January,  because  born  in  the  old  year."  Menasseh 
ben  Israel  ^  says  that,  '*  in  respect  of  the  festivals,  solemnities, 
and  computations  of  the  reigns  of  kings,  Nisan  [March]  is  the 
beginning  of  the  year ;  but  in  regard  to  the  creation  and  secular 
matters,  it  is  Tisri"  (September). 

That  eminent  scholar  and  Egyptologist,  Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson,^ 
well  observes  that  the  study  of  clu^onology  is  "  particularly 
obscure  and  difficult  when  we  have  to  do  with  Oriental  modes 
of  computation,  which  are  essentially  different  from  ours. 
Before  the  time  of  Abraham,  the  narrative  given  in  the  book 
of  Genesis  may  be  a  condensed  epitome  of  foregoing  history — 
not  a  consecutive  line  of  historical  events,  year  by  year  and  gen- 
eration by  generation,  but  a  condensed  epitome  of  what  had 
occm'red  in  the  world  from  the  creation  to  that  time ;  for  if  you 
wUl  scrutinize  it  carefully,  you  will  see  that  in  some  instances  the 
names  of  individuals  are  put  for  tribes,  dj-nasties,  and  nations, 
and  that  it  is  no  part  of  the  object  of  the  historian  to  give  the 
consecutive  course  of  affairs  in  the  world  at  large."  He  pro- 
ceeds to  express  the  conviction  that  there  is  yet  to  come  to  us, 
from  Arabian  and  other  Oriental  sources,  a  mode  of  interpreting 
chronology  according  to  these  lists  of  names,  which  he  does  not 
believe  we  have  yet  got  hold  of ;  hence  he  is  not  troubled  by 
any  seeming  discrepancies.  If,  then,  in  dealing  with  biblical 
numbers,  we  encounter  methods  of  comimtation  which  differ 
essentially  from  om'  own,^  this  is  a  fact  wliich  no  student  nor 
interpreter  of  scripture  can  afford  to  overlook. 

'  Coin  iliator,  i.,  1-2G-129.      -  Man  in  Genesis  and  in  Gcoloffy,  pp.  104-105. 
^  The  llebrew  and  Arabic  allow  a  peculiar  latitude  in  the  expression  of 
numbers.  According  to  Nordheiiner(  Hebrew  Grammar,  i.  265),  and  Wright 
2 


14  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

It  is  clear  that  the  Hebrews  often  employed  "  round  num- 
bers," or,  omitting  fractions,  made  use  of  the  nearest  whole 
number.  Thus,  the  ages  of  the  patriarchs,  in  Gen.  v.,  are  given 
in  this  manner,  unless  we  adopt  tlie  improbable  supposition 
that  each  of  them  died  upon  some  anniversary  of  his  birth. 

The  foregoing  considerations  evince  the  folly  of  hasty  decisions 
in  regard  to  biblical  chronology.  When  the  sacred  writers 
disagree  as  to  numbers  and  dates,  unless  there  is  evidence  that 
they  intended  to  reckon  from  the  same  point  and  by  the  same 
method,  the  verdict  must  be :  "  Discrepancy  not  proven." 

G.  The  peculiarities  of  the  Orientalidiom  are  another  prolific 
source  of  discrepancies.  The  people  of  the  East  are  fervid 
and  impassioned  in  their  modes  of  thought  and  expression. 
They  think  and  speak  in  poetry.'  Bold  metaphors  and  startling 
hyperboles  abound  in  their  writings  and  conversation.     "  The 

(Arabic  Grammar,  p.  211),  both  these  lano:uages  permit  one  to  write  first 
the  units,  then  the  tens,  hundreds  and  thousands,  in  their  order;  or  he  may 
reverse  the  method,  writing  the  highest  denomination  first,  and  ending 
with  the  lowest. 

Kev.  Dr.  C.  S.  Robinson,  in  the  Christian  Weekly,  thus  overstates  and 
misapplies  the  first  usage:  "Tliis  is  just  the  reverse  of  our  habit.  We 
put  tliousands  before  hundreds,  and  hundreds  before  units.  So  if  a  literal 
rendering  of  one  of  those  vast  numbers  be  made  into  English,  it  will 
appear  positively  preposterous. 

"  In  the  first  book  of  Samuel,  we  arc  told  (in  our  version),  that  for  tlie 
impiety  of  looking  into  the  ark,  the  Lord  smote,  in  the  little  town  of  Beth- 
^lemcsh,  'of  the  people  fifty  thousand  and  threescore  and  ten  men  '  (1  Sam. 
vi.l9).  Now,  one  cannot  help  thinking  that  there  was  no  town  in  all  those 
borders  so  large  as  this  assumes.  Fifty  thousand  men  besides  women  and 
children,  would  populate  one  of  our  larger  modern  ciiies. 

"The  difficulty  disappears  when  you  recall  the  idiom  I  have  mentioned. 
The  verse  reads,  'seventy,  fifiies,  and  a  thousand,'  —  that  is,  not  seventy 
and  fifty  thousand,  as  it  is  translated,  but  seventy,  two  fifties,  and  one 
thousand,  or  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  seventy  men  in  all." 

Dr.  K.'s  explanation  is  inapposite.  There  is  quite  as  much  reason  for 
reading  "  seventies  "  as  "  fifties,"  since  both  the  original  words  are,  as  they 
ought  to  be,  in  the  plural  number.  (See  Ccsenius,  Ilel).  t!rain.,  Sect.  97, 
Par.  8).    Besides,  "  fifiies  "  may  as  well  denote  ten  fifties  as  two  fifties. 

'  A  learneil  writer  observes  of  Arabian  literature:  "A  poetic  spirit  per- 
vades all  their  works.    Even  treatises  in  the  abstract  sciences,  yeographi- 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  15 

shepherd,"  says  Eichhorn,^  "  only  speaks  in  the  soul  of  the 
shepherd,  and  the  primitive  Oriental  only  speaks  in  the  soul  of 
another  Oriental.  Without  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
customs  of  pastoral  life,  without  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
East  and  its  manners,  without  a  close  intimacy  with  the  manner 

of  tliinking  and  speaking  in  the  uncivilized  world, you 

easily  become  a  traitor  to  the  book,  when  you  would  be  its 
deliverer  and  interpreter." 

Professor  Stuart :  ^  "  I  do  not,  and  woidd  not,  summon  them 
[the  books  of  scripture]  before  the  tribunal  of  Occidental  criti- 
cism. Asia  is  one  world ;  Europe  and  America,  another.  Let 
an  Asiatic  be  tried  before  his  own  tribunal.  To  pass  just 
sentence  upon  him,  we  must  enter  into  his  feelmgs,  views, 
methods  of  reasoning  and  tliinking,  and  place  ourselves  in  the 
midst  of  the  cu-cumstances  wliich  surrounded  him." 

Lowth,^  on  Metaphors  :  "  The  Orientals  are  attached  to  tliis 
style  of  composition ;  and  many  flights  which  our  ears  —  too 
fastidious,  perhaps,  in  these  respects  —  will  scarcely  bear,  must 
be  allowed  to  the  general  freedom  and  boldness  of  these  winters." 

Again,  he  speaks  of  the  difficulties  which  arise  in  reading 
authors  "  where  everything  is  depicted  and  illustrated  with  the 
greatest  variety  and  abundance  of  imagery  ;  they  must  be  stUl 
more  numerous  in  such  of  the  poets  as  are  foreign  and  ancient 
—  in  the  Orientals  above  all  foreigners;  they  being  tlie  farthest 
removed  from  our  customs  and  manners,  and,  of  all  the  Ori- 
entals, more  especially  in  the  Hebrews." 

cal  and  medical  works,  have  a  poetic  cast.  All  their  literary  productions, 
from  the  most  impassioned  ode  to  the  firman  of  the  Grand  Seigneur,  !)clon^ 
to  the  province  of  poetry." 

IMichaelis  quotes  an  Araljic  poet  wlio  expresses  the  fact,  that  swords 
were  drawn  with  which  to  cut  the  throats  of  enemies,  thus :  "  Tlie  ih\u<,'hters 
of  the  sheath  leaped  forth  from  their  chambers,  thirsting  to  drink  in  the 
jugular  vein  of  their  enemies."  —  Sec  Bib.  Repository,  Oct.  1836,  pp.  489, 
44i3. 

'  See  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  31-.3.2. 

"  IIi.story  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  187.    Revised  ed.  p.  174. 

'  Lectures  on  Hebrew  Poetry,  pp.  51,  47  (Stowe's  edition). 


16  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson :  ^  "  He  who  does  not  remember  the 
wide  difference  between  the  Oriental  and  Occidental  mind, 
must  necessarily  fall  into  error.  The  luxuriant  imagination 
and  glowing  ardor  of  the  former  exj^ress  themselves  in  hyper- 
bolical and  extravagant  diction  ;  whereas  the  subdued  character 
and  coolness  of  the  latter  are  averse  to  sensuous  luxuriance." 

Again :  "  The  fisoires  are  bold  and  daring.  Passion  and 
feeling  predominate.  In  the  Psalms  pre-eminently,  we  see  the 
theology  of  the  feelings,  rather  than  of  the  intellect.  Logic  is 
out  of  place  there.  Dogmas  cannot  be  established  on  such  a 
basis,  nor  was  it  ever  meant  to  be  so." 

Professor  Park :  ^  "  More  or  less  clandestinely,  we  are  wont 
to  interpret  an  ancient  and  an  Oriental  poet,  as  we  would 
interpret  a  modern  and  Occidental  essayist.  The  eastern 
minstrel  employs  intense  words  for  saying  what  the  western 
logician  would  say  in  tame  language.  The  fervid  Oriental 
would  turn  from  our  modifying  phrases  in  sickness  of  heart. 
We  shudder  at  the  lofty  flights  which  captivate  him.  But 
he  and  we  mean  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  Occidental 
philosopher  has  a  definite  thought  when  he  affirms  that  God 
exercises  benevolence  toward  good  men.  Isaiah  has  essentially 
the  same  thought  when  he  cries  out :  '  As  the  bridegi'oom 
rejoiceth  over  the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee.' " 

Such  being  the  genius  and  idiom  of  the  Orientals,  it  cannot 
be  deemed  strange  that  their  metaphors  and  hyperboles  over- 
lap and  collide  with  one  another;  that  we  find  David,'  for 
example,  at  one  time  calling  God  a  rock,  and  elsewhere 
speaking  of  his  wings  and  feathers.  Such  bold  and  free 
imagery,  when  properly  interpreted,  develops  a  felicitous  mean- 
ing; but  when  expounded  according  to  literalistic,  matter-of- 
fact  methods,  it  yields  discrepancies  in  aljundancc.  To  the 
interpreter  of  scripture,  no  two  qualifications  are  more  imlis- 
pensable  than  common  sense  and  honesty. 

>  Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  409,  310.  -  Bib.  Sacra,  xix.  170, 171. 

"  Pa.  xlii.  9,  and  xci.  4. 


ORIGIN   OP   THE    DISCREPANCIES.  17 

7.  Other  dissonances  in  scripture  are  obviously  attributable 
to  the  P^astern  custom  of  ap23lying  a  plurality  of  names  to  the 
same  person  or  object.  In  matters  of  every-day  life,  this 
custom  is  widely  prevalent.  Thus,  in  the  Arabic,^  there  are 
1000  different  words  or  names  for  "sword,"  500  for  "lion," 
200  for  "  serpent,"  400  for  "  misfortune,"  80  for  "  honey." 

The  Hebrew  language  has  as  many  as  fifty  words  denoting 
a  body  of  water  of  some  kind.^  There  are  at  least  eighteen 
Hebrew  words  used  to  express  different  kinds  of  prickly  slunibs 
or  weeds  which  occur  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures.^  Gesenius 
gives  some  eight  different  Hebrew  terms  for  "  counsel,"  twelve 
for  "  darkness,"  thirty-two  for  "  destruction,"  ten  for  "  law,"  and 
twenty-three  for  "  wealth."  * 

The  usage  in  respect  to  proper  names  is  quite  similar.  Thus 
we  find  Jacob  and  Israel,  Edom  and  Esau,  Gideon  and  Jerubbaal, 
Hoshea  or  Oshea  and  Jehoshua  or  Joshua.  One  of  the  apostles 
bore  the  following  appellations :  Simon,  Simeon,  Peter,  Cephas, 
Simon  Peter,  Simon  Bar-jona,  and  Simon  son  of  Jonas.  So  we 
find  Joseph,  Barsabas,  and  Justus  designating  the  same  individual. 

Not  infrequently  the  names  of  persons  and  places  were 
changed  on  account  of  some  important  event.  The  custom 
prevails  to  some  extent  m  modern  times.  The  Persian  king, 
Shah  Solyman,  began  to  reign  in  1667,  under  the  name  Suilee. 
During  the  first  years  of  liis  reign,  misfortune  attended  him. 
He  came  to  the  conclusion  that  liis  name  was  an  unlucky  one, 
and  must  be  laid  aside,  in  order  to  avert  further  calamities. 
"  He  accordingly  assumed,  with  great  solemnity,  the  name  of 
Solyman.  He  was  crowned  anew  under  that  name,  and  all 
the  seals  and  coins  which  bore  the  name  of  Suffee  were  broken, 
as  if  one  king  had  died,  and  another  succeeded."  ^     Chardin,  an 

'  Bleek,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  43.    Also,  Biblical  Repository  for  October, 
1836,  pp.  433,  434. 
-  Taylor's  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  p.  91  (Gowans'  edition). 
^  Tristram's  Natural  History  of  tlie  Bible,  p.  423  (London  edition). 
*  Potter's  Knirlish-llebrew  Lexicon,  sub  vocibus. 
°  Bush,  Notes  on  Genesis  xvii.  5. 


18  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

eye-witness,  gives  an  account  of  the  coronation.  The  custom 
of  changing  the  name  of  the  pope  at  the  time  of  his  election 
is  not  unhke,  —  Aeneas  Sylvius  becoming  Pius  II. 

Often,  in  the  Bible,  the  name  of  the  head  of  a  tribe  or  nation 
is  put  for  his  posterity.  Thus,  m  a  multitude  of  cases,  ''  Israel" 
means  the  Israelitish  nation  ;  "  Ephi-aim  "  and  "  Moab  "  signify 
the  descendants  of  those  men  respectively.  Keepinnf  in  mind 
the  great  latitude  allowed  by  the  Orientals  in  the  use  of  names, 
we  see  the  ready  solution  of  many  difficulties  in  the  biblical 
record. 

8.  Not  a  few  verbal  contradictions  arise  from  the  use  of  the 
same  word  with  different^  sometimes  opposite,  sig7iiJications.  As 
Fuerst  says,  "  Analogy  in  the  Semitic  dialects  admits  of  directly 
opposite  meanings  m  a  word  as  possible."  Accorduig  to  this 
lexicographer  and  Gesenius,  the  Hebrew  word  "  barak  "  is  used 
in  the  opjiosite  senses  Of  to  bless  and  to  curse.  So  "  yiirash  " 
means  both  to  possess  and  to  dispossess  ;  "  nakar,"  to  know  and 
not  to  know  ;  "  sjiqal,"  to  pelt  with  stones  and  to  free  from 
stones  ;  "shabar,"  to  buy  grain  and  to  sell  grain.  So  the  Latm 
word  "  sacer  "  means  both  holy  and  accursed. 

This  infelicity  of  human  speech  is  not,  indeed,  peculiar  to  the 
East.  In  our  version  of  the  scriptures,'  and  in  the  early  Eng- 
lish literature,'^  the  word  "  let "  is  employed  with  the  contra- 
dictory meanings,  to  permit  and  to  hinder.  In  common  par- 
lance, a  boy  "stones"  a  fruit-tree,  and  the  cook  "stones"  certain 
kinds  of  fruit.  "  Cleave  "  affords  another  example  of  opposite 
significations  combined  in  the  same  word.^ 

"Wlien,  therei'orc,  we  read  in  the  Bible  that  certain  persons 
"  feared  tire  Lord,"  yet  "  feared  not  the  Lord "  ;  that  God 
"  repents,"  yet  does  not  repent ;  that  lie  "  tempted  "  Abraham, 
yet  tempts  no  man,  we  find  a  ready  solution  of  these  apparent 
contradictions. 

*  Isa.  xliii.  13;  Rom.  i.  LI;  2  Tliess.  ii.  7. 

'^  Two  Gent,  of  Verona,  iii.  1 ;  Hamlet,  i.  4;  Iloraeo  and  Juliet,  ii.  2. 

'■^  Sec  Koget'a  Thesaurus  of  Knf^lish  Words,  Iiiirod.  p.  23. 


ORIGIN    OF   THI']    DISCREPANCIES.  19 

Fiequontly  discrepancies  appear  in  our  version,  when  none 
exist  in  the  originaL  Tliis  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  same 
Engl  is!  1  woi'd  has  been  emplo3'ed  by  the  translators  to  represent 
several  original  terms.  Tlius,  in  Luke  xiii.  24  and  2  Tim.  ii. 
24,  two  distinct  Greek  words  are  ui  our  version  rendered 
"  strive."  The  resulting  incongruity  disappears  when  we  con- 
'sider  that  the  term  in  Luke  should  have  been  rendered  "ago- 
nize." Of  course,  all  such  discrepancies  are  to  be  attributed  to 
the  translators,  and  not  to  the  book  itself. 

It  is  well  to  remember,  also,  that  in  King  James's  version 
words  are  frequently  employed  in  an  unusual  or  obsolete  sense. 
Thus  we  find  "  prevent  "'  signifying  to  anticipate  or  precede  ; 
"  thought "  ^  implying  anxiety.  Often  a  knowledge  of  the 
ambiguity  of  their  pivotal  words  enables  us  to  reconcile  two 
conflicting  texts  with  the  greatest  ease. 

9.  A  very  large  number  of  discrepancies  take  their  rise  from 
errors  in  the  manuscripts  ;  these  errors  being  occasioned  by 
the  similarity  of  the  alphabetical  characters  to  one  another,  and 
by  the  consequent  blunders  of  transcrilxirs.  The  reader  need 
not  l)e  reminded  that  previous  to  the  invention  of  printing,  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  books  were  produced  and  multiplied  by 
the  slow,  laborious  method  of  copying  with  the  pen.  In  a 
process  so  mechanical,  mistakes  would  inevitably  occur.  The 
most  carefully  printed  book  is  not  entirely  free  from  typo- 
grapliical  errors ;  the  most  carefully  written  manuscript  will 
exhibit  defects  of  some  kind.  "  God  might"  says  an  eminent 
critic,'^  "  have  so  guided  the  hand  or  fixed  the  devout  attention 
of  copyists,  during  the  long  space  of  fourteen  hundred  years 
before  the  invention  of  lorinting,  and  of  compositors  and  printers 
of  the  Bible  for  the  last  four  centuries,  that  no  jot  or  tittle 
should  have  been  changed  of  all  that  was  written  therein.  Such 
a  course  of  providential  arrangement  we  must  confess  to  be 
quite  possible  ;  but  it  coidd  have  been  brought  about  and  main- 

»  Ps.  cxix.  147, 118;  1  TIicss.  iv.  15.  a  Matt.  vi.  25. 

*  Scrivener,  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  3. 


20  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

tained  by  nothing  short  of  a  continuous,  unceasing  mu'acle  — 
by  making  fallible  men  (nay,  many  such  in  every  generation) 
for  one  purpose  absolutely  mfallible."  To  the  unavoidable 
errors  of  copyists  is,  beyond  question,  to  be  attributed  a  large 
portion  of  those  minute  discrepancies,  in  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  wliich  we  commonly  term  "  various  readings."  The 
liability  to  mistakes  in  chirogi'aphy  was,  moreover,  indefinitely 
augmented  by  the  very  close  resemblance  of  certain  Hebrew 
letters  to  one  another.     Kalisch '  gives  twelve  examples  in  point. 

"  Several  letters,"  says  Professor  Stuart,^  "  bear  a  great 
resemblance  to  each  other."  As  illustrations,  he  mentions: 
Beth  n  and  Kaph  3;  Daleth  n  and  Resh  -\;  Daleth  T  and  final 
Iviiph  'T  ;  Vav  1  and  Yod  "^ ;  Yav  T  and  Nun  final  "j ;  Heth  n 
and  He  n ;  Heth  n  and  Tav  n.  He  might  have  added,  Pe  S 
and  Kaph  D.  The  reader  wUl  observe  that,  if  the  left  hand 
perpendicular  line  of  He  be  accidentally  omitted  or  blurred,  we 
have  Daleth  left,  thus,  rt,  1 ;  so  Tav  and  Resh,  thus,  n,"i ;  also 
Pe  and  Kaph,  D,  D.  "  At  one  time,"  says  Herbert  INIarsh,^ 
"  the  whole  difference  consists  in  the  acuteness  or  obtuseness 
of  an  angle ;  at  other  times,  either  on  the  length  or  the  straighf> 
ness  of  a  line ;  distinctions  so  minute  that  even  when  the  letters 
are  perfect,  mistakes  will  sometimes  happen,  and  still  more 
frequently  when  they  are  inaccurately  formed,  or  are  partially 
effaced.  In  fact,  this  is  one  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of 
error  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts." 

Certain  Greek  letters,  also,  look  very  much  alike ;  for 
example,  Nu  v  and  Upsilon  v,  with  others. 

Every  one  is  aware  how  easily  the  English  letters  b  and  d 
are  confounded,  also  p  and  q;  how  often  we  see  N  placed  thus, 
N-  In  print  we  see  the  figures  3  and  8,  G  and  9,  mistaken  for 
each  other.  How  frequently  we  find  "  recieve  "  for  "  receive," 
"cheif  "  for  "  chief,"  "  thier  "  for  "  their,"  and  the  like.  Now,  if 
sucli  errors  occur,  in  the  most  cjirefully  corrected  print,  what  are 

'  Hebrew  Grammar,  i.  3.         ^  Ilcljrcw(irammar,  See.  17  (ed.  of  1821). 
*  Lectures  on  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  p.  186. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  21 

we  to  look  for  in  manuscript,  and  particularly  when  the  letters 
of  which  it  is  composed  are  so  nearly  alike  ?  INIoreover,  as  Theo- 
dore Parker  ^  says,  "  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  formerly  the  He- 
brew letters  resembled  one  another  more  closely  than  at  present." 

Under  such  circumstances  as  the  foregoing,  that  occasional 
mistakes  should  have  been  made  in  copying  by  hand  the  Heb- 
rew of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  so  many 
times  in  the  course  of  fourteen  centuries,  is  a  thing  which  to  no 
reasonable  nian  can  occasion  sm-prise. 

In  fact,  nothing  but  the  most  astounding  miracle^  could  have 
prevented  such  mistakes. 

We  are  now  ready  to  add  that,  in  the  ancient  Hebrew,  letters 
were,  in  all  probability,  used  for  numerals.  That  is,  letters 
were  employed  by  the  original  Avriters  to  represent  numbers, 
wliich  were  expanded  and  written  out  in  full  by  later  copiers. 
So,  with  us,  one  author  might  write  "  CXI." ;  another,  "  one 
hundred  and  eleven." 

"  The  Eabbinical  writers,"  says  Nordheimer :  ^  "  employ  the 
letters  of  the  alphabet,  after  the  manner  of  tlie  ancient  Greeks, 
for  the  purpose  of  numerical  notation."  Tlie  same  is  true  of 
more  ancient  writers,  inchuhng  those  of  the  Masora.  That  the 
original  writers  did  this,  though  not  absolutely  demonstrated,  is 
generally  conceded  by  scholars. 

Rawlmsou  ^  observes  :  "  Nothing  in  ancient  MSS.  is  so  Liable 
to  corruption  from  the  mistakes  of  copyists  as  the  numbers  ; 

1  Dc  Wcttc's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  311. 

*  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Bcntley,  "  That  in  millions  of  copies  transcribed  in 
so  many  a^cs  and  nations,  all  the  notaries  and  writers,  who  made  it  their 
trade  and  livelihood  shonld  he  infallible  and  imi)eccal)le;  that  their  pens 
should  spontaneously  write  true,  or  be  supernaturaliy  sruided,  thou<;h  the 
scribes  were  noddiny:  or  dreaming;  would  not  this  exceed  all  the  miracles 
of  both  Old  and  New  Testament?"  Yet  the  same  scholarly  critic  else- 
where assures  us  tliat  "the  New  Testament  has  sufl'cred  less  injury  by  the 
liand  of  time  than  any  profime  author."  —  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse, 
Part  i.  Sec.  .32. 

^  Hebrew  Grammar,  Vol.  i.  jip.  -203,  '200,  note. 

*  On  Historical  Dilliculties  of  Old  and  New  Test.,  p.  9. 


22  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  original  mode  of  writing  them  appears  in  all  countries  of 
wliich  we  have  any  knowledge  to  have  been  by  signs,  not  very 
different  from  one  another  ;  the  absence  of  any  context  deter- 
minmg  in  favor  of  one  number  rather  than  another,  where  the 
copy  is  blotted  or  faded,  increases  the  chance  of  error,  and  thus 
it  happens  that  in  almost  all  ancient  works  the  numbers  are 
foimd  to  be  deserving  of  very  little  reliance." 

Mr.  Warington :  ^  "  There  is  little  doubt  but  that  numbers 
were  originally  i-epresented  in  Hebrew,  not  as  now  by  the 
names  of  the  numbers  in  full,  but  simply  by  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet  taken  in  order,  at  the  following  numoi'ical  value: 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  G,  7,  8,  9,  10,  20,  30,  40,  50,  60,  70,  80,  90,  100, 
200,  300,  400  ;  the  five  terminal  letters  supplying  the  numbers 
from  500  to  900,  and  the  thousands  being  obtained  by  append- 
ing certain  marks  or  points  to  the  units." 

Mr.  Phillott : '"'  "■  Like  most  Oriental  nations,  it  is  probable  that 
the  Hebrews  in  their  written  calculations  made  use  of  the  letters 
of  the  aljihabet.  That  they  did  so  in  post-Dabylonian  times 
we  have  conclusive  evidence  in  the  Maccabaean  coins  ;  and  it 
is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the  case  also  in  earlier  times." 

Keil :  ^  "  An  interchange  of  similar  letters,  on  the  assumption 
that  letters  were  used  as  numerals,  also  explains  many  dilfer- 
ences  in  numljcrs,  and  many  statements  of  excessive  and  in- 
credible mnnbers."  Elsewhere,  he  calls  attention  to  certain 
"  corruptions  which  have  arisen  from  the  blunders  of  copyists  in 
transcription,  and  by  the  resolution  of  the  numerical  statements, 
the  mnnbers  having  l)een  denoted  by  letters  of  the  alphabet." 

De  Wette,*  s])caking  of  the  mistakes  of  copyists :  "  They 
confounded  similar  letters.  Hence,  on  the  supposition  that 
numeral  characters  were  used,  we  are  to  explain  the  difference 
in  numl)ers."  He  adiluccs  several  pertinent  instances.  "  In 
this  manner,"  continues  his  translator,  Theodore  Parker,  "  many 
other  mistakes  in  numbers  seem  to  hav(!  arisen." 

'  On  Inspiration,  ])]).  'lOi,  '20.").  -  Sinitli's  Ilib.  Diet.,  "  Number." 

■'  Iniroil.  lodlil  IVst.,  ii.  207  and  85.     *  Inlroij.  to  ()|i|  IVsi.,  i.  ;5I0. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  23 

Dr.  Keuuicott :  ^  "  That  the  Jewish  transcribers  did  frequently 
express  the  Bible  numbers  in  the  original  by  single  letters  is 
well  known  to  the  learned." 

This  author  also  cites  the  learned  Scaliger,  and  an  ancient 
Hebrew  Grammar,  printed  with  the  Complutensian  Bible  in 
1515,  to  the  same  effect. 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  :  ^  "  Wherever  numerous  proper  names 
occur,  there  is  greater  liability  to  err.  So  with  regard  to  num- 
bers ;  for  letters  alike  in  shape  being  used  as  numerals,  were 
easily  interchanged." 

Again,  "  Letters  ha\'ing  been  used  as  numerals  in  ancient 
times,  one  letter  was  often  mistaken  for  another  by  transcribers, 
and  hence  many  corruptions  got  into  the  text." 

Winer  :  ^  "  In  expressing  numbers,  the  Jews,  in  the  2:)0st-exile 
period,  as  is  evident  from  the  incriptions  of  the  so-called  Samari- 
tan coins,  employed  the  letters  of  the  alphabet ;  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  old  Hebrews  did  tlie  same,  just  as  the 
Greeks,  who  derived  their  alphabet  from  the  Phoenicians,  ex- 
pressed, from  the  earliest  ages,  numbers  by  letters." 

"  From  the  confounding  of  similarly-shaiaed  letters  when  used 
for  numerals,  and  from  the  subsequent  writing  out  of  the  same 
in  words  can  be  explamed  satisfactorily  ui  part  the  enormous 
sums  in  the  Old  Testament  books,  and  the  contradictions  m 
their  statements  of  numbers ;  yet  caution  is  herein  necessary." 

Gesenius  ■*  expresses  himself  in  very  similar  language,  adduces 
examples  illustrative  of  the  above  hypothesis,  and  pronounces 
it  "  certainly  probable  "  (allerdings  walu'schcinlich). 

Glassius^  also  decides  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis,  and  discusses 
the  subject  witli  no  little  skill  ;uh1  ability. 

'  Oil  Printed  Hebrew  Text,  i.  96. 

-  liitrod.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108,  112. 

"  Rcal-\Vortert)iK'h,  Art.  "  Zaiilcn." 

*  Gcscliiclite  del-  Ileh.  Spraclie  und  Sclirift,  pp.  17.'],  174. 

"  Philolo^na  Saeni,  Tom.  ii.  pp.  1S8-195  (Datlie  and  Paner's  edition). 
Sec,  also,  J.  M.  Falier's  "  Litcias  olini  pro  vocibus  in  numeiando  a  serip- 
toril.ius  V.T.  esse  adhihiias."  —  ()ni>ldi,  177."). 


24  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  The  frequent  use  of  contractions  in  writ- 
ing was  a  very  common  source  of  errors  ;  for  many  of  these  ab- 
breviations were  extremely  complicated,  obscure,  and  ambiguous, 
so  that  an  unskilful  copyist  was  very  likely  to  mistake  one  word 
for  another.  No  parts  of  ancient  books  have  suffered  so  much 
from  errors  of  inadvertency  as  those  which  relate  to  numbers  ; 
for  as  one  numeral  letter  was  easily  mistaken  for  another,  and 
as  neither  the  sense  of  the  passage,  nor  the  rules  of  orthography 
nor  of  syntax,  suggested  the  genuuie  reading,  when  once  an 
error  had  arisen,  it  would  most  often  be  perpetuated,  without 
remedy.  It  is,  therefore,  almost  always  unsafe  to  rest  the  stress 
of  an  argimient  upon  any  statement  of  numbers  in  ancient 
writers,  unless  some  correlative  computation  confirms  the  read- 
ing of  tlie  text.  Hence  nothing  can  be  more  frivolous  or  unfair 
than  to  raise  an  objection  against  the  veracity  or  accuracy  of  an 
historian,  iijion  some  apparent  incompatability  in  his  statement 
of  numbers.  Difficulties  of  this  sort  it  is  much  better  to  attribute, 
at  once,  to  a  corruption  of  the  text,  than  to  discuss  them  with 
ill-spent  assiduity." 

On  the  authority  of  these  scholars  and  critics,  of  creeds  widely 
diverse,  yet  agi'eeing  in  this  particular,  we  may,  therefore,  easily 
exj)lain  many  of  the  contradictory  and  extravagant  numbers  ^ 
which  we  find  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Also  certain  discrepancies  in  the  New  Testament  are  explictxble 
l)y  the  fact  that,  as  is  the  case  in  the  Codex  Bezae,  Greek 
letters  bearing  a  close  resemblance  were  used  as  numerals,^  and 
hence  were  mistaken  for  one  another.  In  our  common  Greek 
text,  the  number  "  six  hundred  three  score  and  six  "  is  indicated 
simply  by  three  or  sometimes  four  characters.* 

'  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  24,  25. 

*  Glassius  observes, "  Modo  cniin  numeros  iiivcniinns.qni  omncm  morlum 
cxecdunt,  niodo  si  eadem  res  in  duobus  libris  naiTatur,  in  aitero  numerus 
adfcrliir,  cni  niter  contradicit."  —  I'liii.  Sacra,  DeCaiissis  Corrupt.  §  23. 

'  In  tlic  Sinaitic  MS.,  "  numerals  are  represented  by  letters,  with  a  straight 
line  placed  over  them."  —  Scrivener's  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  78. 

Murher,  as  Tiscliendorf  also  writes,  xl^'.  or  else  xl"^''''.  Alford  ^vrites, 
in  full,  f^aK6aiot  i^tiKoi/Ta  t{.  —  Sec  liev.  xiii.  18. 


ORIGIN   OP   TKE   DISCREPANCIES.  25 

Wc  thus  see  how  mistakes  m  respect  to  numbers  have  origi- 
nated. 

It  hardly  need  be  added  that  errors  as  to  names  have  arisen 
in  the  same  way,  —  from  the  similarity  of  certain  letters.  Thus 
we  find  Hadadezer  and  Iladarezer,^  a  Daleth  T  being  mistaken 
for. a  Resh  i  —  and  many  like  cases. 

The  key  thus  furnished,  will  unlock  many  difficulties  during 
the  i^rogress  of  our  work. 

10.  Multitudes  of  alleged  discrepancies  are  the  product  of 
the  imagination  of  the  critic,  influenced  to  a  greater  or  less 
degi'ee  by  dogmatic  prejudice. 

Two  classes  of  writers  illustrate  this  remark.  Of  one  class 
no  names  will  be  mentioned.  The  character,  spirit,  and  motives 
of  these  writers  render  further  notice  of  them  inconsistent  with 
the  25urpose  of  our  work. 

The  second  class  —  not  to  be  spoken  of  in  the  same  connec- 
tion with  the  former  —  comprises  men  possessing,  in  not  a  few 
cases,  valid  claims  to  scholarship,  to  critical  acumen  and  to 
great  respectability  of  character.  Foremost  in  this  class  may 
be  placed  De  Wette,  as  he  appears  in  Ms  earlier  writings,  and 
Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  as  he  is  seen  in  some  of  his  later  works. 
It  is  i^ainful  to  add  that  it  seems  impossible  to  acquit  even 
these  authors  of  great  occasional  unfiiirness  in  their  handling 
of  the  scriptures.- 

Next  —  but  by  a  long  interval  —  may  stand  the  names  of 
Strauss,  Colenso,  and  Theodore  Parker.  One  can  scarcely  read 
the  productions  of  these  three,  and  some  others  of  their  school, 

1  2  Sam.  viii.  3;  1  Cbron.  xviii.  3. 

*  See,  under  "Ethical  Discrepancies,  —  Enemies  treated,"  an  instance 
from  Baur,  relative  to  Rom.  xii.  20;  also,  one  from  De  Wette,  under  "  His- 
torical Discrepancies,  —  Anak's  Sons'  Fate." 

It  may  be  added  that  De  Wette,  as  is  pencrally  admitted,  durinu'  his 
latter  years  approximated  to  ortliodo.xy.  On  the  contrary.  Dr.  Davidson's 
tendencies  may  he  i:athcred  from  a  comparison  of  the  discussion  of  the 
Discrepancies,  in  his  "  Sacred  Ilermeneutics,"'  pp.  olC— Gil,  with  his  treat- 
men:  of  the  same,  in  Home's  Introduction  (tenth  edition).  Vol.  ii.  pp.  D03- 
5J'!.  See,  also.  Dr.  Davidson's  Iiitro.lnciion  to  tlie  Old  Test.,  thruu-hout. 
3 


26  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

without  the  conviction  that  the  animus  of  these  writei's  is  often 
felicitously  expressed  by  the  old  Latin  motto,  slightly  modified : 
"  I  wUl  either  find  a  discrepancy,  or  I  will  make  one "  —  Aut 
inveniam  discrepantiam,  aut  faciam. 

Certain  rationalistic  authors  have  a  convenient  method  for 
dispostug  of  answers  to  the  objections  adduced  by  them.  They 
begin  at  once  to  talk  loftily  of  the  "  higher  criticism,"  and  to 
deride  the  answers  and  solutions  as  "  gratuitous  assumptions." 

"  Pertness  and  ignorance,"  says  Bisho23  Home,*  "  may  ask  a 
question  in  three  Unes  which  it  will  cost  learning  and  ingenuity 
thirty  pages  to  answer;  and  when  this  is  done,  the  same  question 
shall  be  triumphantly  asked  again  the  next  year,  as  if  nothing 
had  ever  been  written  on  the  subject."  Often,  when  fairly 
answered  and  refuted,  these  authors  remind  us  of  the  homely 
old  maxim : 

"  A  man  convinced  ag-ainst  his  will, 
Is  of  the  same  opinion  still." 

A  favorite  exegetical  principle  adopted  by  some  of  these 
critics  appears  to  be,  that  similar  events  are  necessarily  identical. 
Hence,  when  they  read  that  Abraham  twice  equivocated  con- 
cerning his  wife  ;  ^  that  Isaac  imitated  his  example  ;^  that  David 
was  twice  in  peril  in  a  certain  wilderness,*  and  twice  spared 
Saul's  life  in  a  cave,^  they  instantly  assume  that  in  each  case 
these  double  narratives  are  irreconcilable  accounts  of  one  and 
the  same  event.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  canon  of  criticism  is 
obvious,  from  the  fact  that  history  is  full  of  events  which  more 
or  less  closely  resemble  one  another.  Take,  as  a  well-known 
example,  the  case  of  the  two  Presidents  Edwards,  father  and 
son.  lioth  were  named  .Jonathan  l^lwards,  and  were  the  gi-and- 
sons  of  chn-gymen.  "  Both  were  pious  m  then"  youth,  were 
distinguished  scholars,  and  were  tutors  for  equal  periods  in  the 
colleges  wlierc  they  were  respectively  educated.     Both  were 

'  Works,  i.  .'502  fIx)n(lon  edition,  4  vols.  IS.^l) 

*  Gen.  xii.  19:  xx.  2.  ''  Gen.  xxvi.  7.        ■*  1  Sam.  xxiii.  19;  xxvi.  1. 

''  1  Sam.  x.xiv.  G;  xxvi.  i). 


ORIGIN   OP  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  27 

settled  in  the  ministry  as  successors  to  their  maternal  grand- 
fathers, were  dismissed  on  account  of  their  religious  opinions, 
and  were  again  settled  in  retired  country  towns,  over  congre- 
gations smgularly  attached  to  them,  where  they  had  leisure  to 
pm'sue  their  favorite  studies,  and  to  jjrepare  and  publish  their 
valuable  works.  Both  were  removed  from  these  stations  to 
become  presidents  of  colleges,  and  both  died  shortly  after  their 
respective  inaugurations ;  the  one  in  the  fifty-sixth,  and  the 
other  in  the  fifty-seventh  year  of  his  age  ;  each  having  preached, 
on  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  year  of  his  death,  on  the  text :  '  This 
year  thou  shalt  die.'  "  ^ 

Now,  let  these  circumstances  be  submitted  for  the  consider- 
ation of  rationahstic  critics,  and,  the  probable  decision  will  be 
that  there  was  but  one  Jonathan  Edwards. 

We  thus  see  that,  if  critics  dared  to  tamper  with  the  facts  of 
secular,  as  they  do  with  those  of  sacred,  history,  they  would 
justly  incur  the  ridicule  of  all  well-informed  persons.  Men 
clamor  for  the  treatment  of  the  Bible  like  any  other  book,  yet 
treat  it  as  they  dare  not  treat  another  book.  Herein  lies  the 
inconsistency  of  much  of  the  current  criticism ;  particularly  of 
that ''  higher  criticism  "  of  which  we  hear  so  much. 

The  following  case  illustrates  a  spirit  and  practice  not  seldom 
exhibited  by  certain  authors :  "  A  Swedish  traveller,  in  looking 
through  Voltaire's  library,  foimd  Calmet's  Commentary,  with 
slips  of  paper  inserted,  on  wliicli  the  difficulties  noticed  by 
Calmet  were  set  down,  without  a  word  about  the  solutions  which 
were  given  by  him.  '  Tliis,'  adds  the  Swede,  who  was  otherwise 
a  great  admirer  of  Voltaire,  '  was.  not  honorable.'  "  "  Our  mod- 
ei-n  critics,"  continues  Hengstenberg,-  ''  have  adopted  exactly 
the  same  line  of  conduct." 

'  Sec  ]\[cmoir  i)rcfixc(l  to  Works  of  Edwards  the  3'oiin<;'cr,  p.  xxxiv. 
Observe  iliat  no  one  of  the  above  cases  bears,  in  respect  io  points  of  coin- 
cidence, worthy  comparison  with  this  unquestioned  instance  Lu  modem 
times. 

-  Genuineness  of  Pent.  i.  47. 


28  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

We  cannot  but  concur  in  the  judgment  couched  in  this  and 
the  follo^\ing  quotations. 

Prof.  Henry  Rogers,'  criticising  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  says 
it  ought  to  be  entitled,  "  A  collection  of  all  the  difficulties  and 
discrepancies  which  honest  criticism  has  discovered,  and  per- 
verted ingenuity  has  imagined,  in  the  four  evangelists." 

Again,  alluding  to  Strauss's  objections,  "  The  jiaraded  dis- 
crepancies are  frequently  assumed ;  sometimes  even  manufac- 
tured." This  criticism  is  supported  by  several  illustrations  from 
the  German  author,  and  is  as  applicable  to  his  "  New  Life  of 
Jesus,"  as  to  liis  earlier  work. 

The  learned  translator  of  Bleek  -  severely,  yet  fitly,  desig- 
nates the  course  pursued  by  certain  authors  as  that  '*  exaggeration 
of  difficulties,  that  ostentatious  parading  of  grounds  of  suspicion, 
which  so  i^aiufully  characterize  much  of  the  later  biblical 
criticism,  and  not  unwarrantably  give  rise  to  the  question 
whether  there  be  not  some  secret  gi-ound  of  malevolence,  some 
unacknowledged,  but  most  influential  desire  to  find  reasons  for 
an  already  existing  unbelief,  to  account  for  the  bitter  and  de- 
termined hostility  with  which  the  books  are  treated." 

It  is  a  lamentable  fact  that  there  is  abroad  in  the  world,  and 
bearing  the  name  of  Christianity,  a  spirit  which,  as  Canon 
Wordsworth  ^  well  says,  "  speaks  fair  words  of  Christ,  and  yet 
it  loves  to  invent  discrepancies,  and  to  imagine  contradictions 
in  the  narratives  which  his  apostles  and  evangelists  delivered 
of  his  birth,  his  temptation,  his  miracles,  liis  agony,  his  suiTeriiigs, 
his  resurrection,  and  ascension."  We  refriiin  from  character- 
izing that  Christianity  which  seeks  to  disparage  its  own  sacred 
books,  and  to  undermine  its  own  foundation. 

Such  arc  the  spirit  and  methods  of  much  of  the  sceptical 
criticism  —  even  of  the  so-called  "higher  criticism" — of  our 
day. 

'  Reason  and  raiili,  pp.  424,  427  (Boston  edition). 
*  I'rcfaec  to  Introduction  to  Old  Test. 
'  riefaco  to  (ireek  Tour  Cospcls,  p.  viii. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  29 

A  careful  and  2:»rotracted  examination  of  the  works  of  nu- 
merous authors,  who  from  various  positions  and  under  various 
jiretences  assail  the  Bible,  warrants,  as  neither  unjust  nor 
micharitable,  the  remark  that  a  large  portion  of  their  alleged 
"  discrepancies  "  are  purely  subjective  —  originating,  primarily, 
not  in  the  sacred  books,  but  in  the  misguided  prejudices  and 
disordered  imagination  of  the  critic. 

We  might  also  have  adduced  the  very  great  compression  of 
the  narrative  as  a  fruitful  source  of  apparent  incongruities. 
Such  was  the  condensation  which  the  writers  were  constrained 
to  employ,  that,  in  any  given  case,  only  a  few  of  the  more 
salient  circumstances  could  be  introduced.  Had  the  sacred 
historians  undertaken  to  relate  every  circumstance,  the  Bible, 
instead  of  being  comprised  in  a  single  volume,  would  have 
filled  many  volumes,  and  would  consequently  have  proved 
imwieldy,  and  well  nigh  useless  to  mankind. 

If  "the  world  itself  could  not  contam  the  books"  which 
should  minutely  detail  all  our  Saviour's  acts,'  how  much  less 
could  it  "  contain  "  those  which  should  narrate  circumstantially 
the  history  of  all  the  important  personages  mentioned  in  the 
scriptures. 

We  thus  see  that,  with  reference  to  any  given  event,  a  host 
of  minute  particulars  have  dropped  from  the  knowledge  of 
mankind,  and  are  lost  beyond  recovery,  Hence,  in  many 
instances,  the  thread  of  the  narrative  is  not  simply  not  obvious, 
but  can  only  be  recovered,  if  at  all,  by  prolonged  and  searching 
scrutiny.  That  circumstances,  combined  in  so  fragmentary 
and  disconnected  a  manner,  should  sometimes  appear  incom- 
patible, is  a  fact  too  familiar  to  need  illustration. 

^  John  xxi.  25. 
3* 


CHAPTER    II. 

DESIGN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 

Why  were  the  discrepancies  permitted  to  exist  ?  What  good 
end  do  they  contemplate  ? 

1.  They  were  doubtless  intended  as  a  stimulus  to  the  human 
intellect,  as  provocative  of  mental  effort.  They  serve  to  awaken 
curiosity  and  to  appeal  to  the  love  of  novelty. 

The  Bible  is  a  wonderful  book.  No  other  has  been  studied 
so  much,  or  called  forth  a  tithe  of  the  criticism  wliich  this  has 
elicited.  "  No  book,  not  nature  itself,  has  ever  waked  up  intel- 
lectual activity  like  the  Bible.  On  the  battle-field  of  truth,  it 
has  ever  been  round  this  that  the  conflict  has  raged.  "VVliat 
book  besides  ever  caused  the  writing  of  so  many  other  books  ? 
Take  from  the  libraries  of  Chi'istendom  all  those  which  have 
sprung,  I  will  not  say  indii-ectly,  but  directly  from  it,  —  those 
written  to  oppose,  or  defend,  or  elucidate  it,  —  and  how  would 
they  be  diminished !  The  very  multitude  of  iulidcl  books  is  a 
witness  to  the  2ioAver  with  which  the  Bible  stimulates  the  intel- 
lect. Why  do  we  not  see  the  same  amount  of  active  intellect 
coming  up,  and  dashing  and  roaring  around  the  Koran  ?  "  ^ 

The  discrepancies  of  the  sacred  volume  have  played  no  insig- 
nificant part  in  this  incitement  of  mental  action.  Though  but  a 
subordinate  characteristic,  they  have  prompted  men  to  "search 
the  scriptures,"  and  to  ask:  How  are  these  difliculties  to  be  re- 
solvetl?  Things  which  are  "hard  to  be  understood,"  present 
special  attractions  to  the  inquirmg  mind.  P]-ofessor  Park  ^  ob- 
serves, in  an  admirable  essay  on  the  choice  of  Texts,  "  Some- 
times a  deeper  interest  is  awakened  by  examining  two  or  more 

'  I'rcsiilent  Ilojikiiis,  Evidciucs  of  Christianity,  p.  Ii4. 
"  liib.  Sacra,  Oct.  1873.  pp.  717,  718. 
80 


DESIGN    OF   THE    DISCREPANCIES.  31 

passages  which  appear  to  contraclict  each  other  than  by  exam- 
ining two  or  more  whicli  resemble  each  other.  Men  are  eager 
to  learn  tlic  meaning  and  force  of  a  text,  one  part  of  whicli  is 
John  XV.  15:  'All  things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  Father  I 
have  made  known  unto  you,'  and  the  other  part  is  John  xvi. 
12  :  '  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you  ;  but  ye  cannot 
bear  them  now.'  Why  did  our  Lord  utter  the  second  part  of 
this  text  after  the  first  part,  yet  m  the  same  hour  with  it  ?  The 
Bible  rouses  the  mind  from  its  torpid  state  by  declaring  that 
man  dieth  and  is  not,  and  yet  lives  forever ;  that  man  is  a  worm 
of  the  dust,  and  yet  is  made  Kttle  lower  than  the  angels  ;  that 
he  must  love,  and  yet  hate  his  father,  mother,  brother,  sister ; 
that  every  man  must  bear  his  own  burden,  and  yet  each  one 
bear  the  burdens  of  his  brethren  ;  that  man's  body  will  be  raised 
from  the  grave,  and  yet  not  the  same  body ;  that  Christ  was 
ignorant  of  some  things,  and  yet  knew  all  things  ;  that  he  could 
not  bear  his  own  cross,  and  yet  upholdeth  all  tilings  by  the  word 
of  his'power.  "When  two  classes  of  passages  stand  in  apparently 
hostile  array  against  each  other  at  the  opening  of  a  sermon,  the 
somnolent  hearer  is  kept  awake  in  order  to  see  how  the  conflict 
will  end.  He  may  be  raised  by  the  discourse  from  his  natural 
love  of  learning  the  truth  to  a  gracious  love  of  the  truth 
which  is  learned." 

TVliately '  says :  "  The  seeming  contradictions  in  scripture 
are  too  numerous  not  to  be  the  result  of  design ;  and  doubtless 
were  designed,  not  as  mere  difficulties  to  try  our  faith  and 
patience,  l)ut  as  furnishing  the  most  suital)le  mode  of  instruction 
that  could  have  been  devised,  by  mutually  explaining  and 
modifying  or  limiting  or  extending  one  another's  meaning." 

Elsewhere,  urging  the  same  thought,  he  observes  :  ''  Instruc- 
tions thus  conveyed  are  evidently  more  striking  and  more  likely 
to  arouse  the  attention ;  and  also,  from  the  very  circumstance 
that  they  call  for  careful  reflection,  more  likely  to  make  a 
lasting  impression." 

'  On  Difficulties  iu  Writings  of  St.  Paul,  Essay  vii.  Sec.  4. 


32  DISCREPANCIES    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

Again,  illustrating,  as  beautifully  as  suggestively,  by  the 
case  of  the  mariner  who  steers  midway  between  certain  land- 
marks, he  adds :  "  Even  thus,  it  will  often  hajipen  that  two 
apparently  opposite  passages  of  scripture  may  together'  enable 
us  to  direct  our  faith  or  our  practice  aright ;  one  shall  be  cal- 
culated to  guard  us  against  certain  errors  on  one  side,  and  the 
other,  on  the  other  side ;  neither,  taken  alone,  shall  convey  the 
exact  and  entire  truth ;  but  both  taken  in  conjunction  may 
enable  us  sufficiently  to  ascertain  it."  He  also  ingeniously 
compares  the  colliding  texts  to  several  mechanical  forces  or 
impulses,  acting  upon  a  body  to  be,  set  in  motion ;  their  resultant 
impelling  it  in  the  direction  required,  though  no  one  of  the 
impulses,  taken  singly,  is  acting  precisely  in  that  direction. 

The  rabbles  have  a  saying  that  "  the  book  of  Chronicles  was 
given  for  argument,"  that  is,  to  incite  men  to  investigation  and 
discussion.^  The  history  of  sacred  criticism  demonstrates  that 
the  book  has  answered  this  purpose  remarkably  well ;  its  dis- 
crepancies being  salient   points  which  attract  attention. 

Not  only  do  these  "  hard  "  things  induce  men  to  investigate  the 
sacred  volume ;  but  meanwhile  resolvuig  themselves  before  the 
steady  and  patient  eye  of  the  student,  they  unfold  deep  and 
rich  meanings  which  amply  reward  his  toil.  This  process  is 
exemplified  in  the  case  of  the  scholar  quoted  above.  He  ob- 
serves :  "  I  well  remember  when  it  seemed  to  me  tliat  there  was 
a  direct  contradiction  between  Paul  and  James  on  the  subject 
of  faith  and  works.  I  can  now  see  that  they  not  only  do  not 
contradict  each  other,  but  liarmonizc  perfectly."^ 

8ays  ]*rofessor  Stuart:^  "In  the  early  part  of  my  biblical 
studies,  some  thirty  to  thirty-five  years  ago,  when  I  first  began 
the  critical  investigation  of  the  scrij)tures,  doubts  and  difficulties 
started  up  on  every  side,  like  the  aimed  men  whom  Cadmus  is 

'  I.'aslii,  rclcrriii;^  to  1  Cliron.  viii.  ;!8,  "Ami  Azd  had  six  sons,"  qiiai)itly 
ami  pitliily  <)l)scrvcs:  "What  the  wise  men  liave  said  about  these  'six 
sons,'  would  load  tliirtcen  thousand  camels." 

-  ICvidcnccs  of  Christianity,  p.  354. 

*  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  18.    Ucviscd  cd.  p.  16. 


DESIGN  OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  33 

fabled  to  have  raised  up.  Time,  patience,  continued  study,  a 
better  acquaintance  with  the  original  sci-iptural  languages  and 
the  countries  where  the  sacred  books  were  written,  have  scat- 
tered to  the  winds  nearly  all  these  doubts." 

In  this  manner,  the  difficulties  of  scripture  often  keenly  stim- 
ulate and  richly  reward  intellectual  effort. 

2.  They  were  meant  to  be  illustrative  of  the  analogy  hetween 
the  Bible  and  nature,  and  so  to  evince  their  common  origin. 
The  "  self-contradictions  "  of  the  Bible  are  produced  on  a  grander 
scale  in  nature.  Wherever  we  turn  our  eyes,  the  material 
universe  affords  unmistakable  traces  of  infinite  wisdom,  power, 
and  benevolence.  The  starry  heavens,  the  earth  robed  in 
vernal  green,  the  bright,  glad  sunsliine,  the  balmy  breezes,  the 
refresliing  dews  and  showers,  the  sweet  song  birds,  the  flowers 
of  brilhant  hues  and  delicious  odors,  the  wonderful  and  countless 
forms  of  vegetation,  the  infinite  varieties  of  insect  and  animal 
life,  the  nice  adaptations  and  benevolent  contrivances  for  their 
welfare  everywhere  visible  in  nature  —  all  these  proclaim  the 
attributes  and  speak  forth  the  praise  of  the  Creator. 

But,  looking  into  the  same  arena  from  another  point  of  view, 
we  see  a  very  different  spectacle.  Want  and  wo,  sorrow  and 
suffering,  appear  dominant  in  the  world.  Frost  and  fire,  famine 
and  pestUence,  earthquake,  volcano,  and  hurricane,  war  and 
intemperance,  a  thousand  diseases  and  ten  thousand  accidents, 
are  doing  their  deadly  work  upon  our  fellow-creatures.  All 
this  fearful  devastation  is  going  on  in  a  world  created  and 
governed  by  infinite  wisdom,  power,  and  love.  Milton's  terrible 
picture '  too  often  finds  its  comiterpart.     Nowhere  in  the  Bible 

*  "  Immediately  a  place 

Before  his  eyes  appeared,  siid,  noisome,  dark, 
A  lazar-house  it  seemed,  wherein  were  laid 
Numbers  of  all  diseased,  all  maladies 
Of  ghastly  spasm  or  rackin<;;  torture,  qualms 
Of  heart-sick  ajrony,  all  feverous  kinds, 
Convulsions,  epilepsies,  fierce  catarrhs, 
Intestine  stone  and  ulcer,  colic  pauirs, 
Demoniac  frenzy,  mopinj^  melancholy, 


34  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

do  we  behold  such  a  gigantic  iuconsistency,  such  an  irrepressible 
conflict,  as  in  the  scene  before  us.  Let  a  man  solve  the  grand 
problem  of  the  ages ;  let  him  tell  us  why  an  infinitely  wise, 
powerful,  and  beneA'olent  Creator  allowed  evil  to  enter  at  all 
his  universe  —  let  him  exjjlain  this  contradiction,  and  we  may 
safely  engage  to  explain  those  which  occur  in  the  Bible.  For 
none  of  them  —  not  all  together  —  are  so  dark,  unfathomable, 
and  appalling  as  this  one  grand,  ultimate  Discrepancy.  Says 
Origen :  "  He  who  believes  the  scrijiture  to  have  proceeded 
from  him  who  is  the  Author  of  nature,  may  well  expect  to  find 
the  same  sort  of  difficulties  in  it  as  are  found  in  the  constitution 
of  nature."  Bishop  Butler^  pertinently  adds,  that  "he  who 
denies  the  scripture  to  have  been  from  God,  on  account  of 
these  dilficulties,  may,  for  the  very  same  reason,  deny  the  world 
to  have  been  formed  by  him." 

In  nature,  then,  we  perceive  mighty  discords,  tremendous 
antagonisms,  which  in  appearance  seriously  involve  and  mili- 
tate against  the  character  and  attributes  of  God.  Nevertheless, 
nature  is  confessedly  liis  work.  Now,  we  find  the  Bible  claim- 
ing the  same  sujiernatural  origin,  and  exhibiting,  among  other 
features  of  resemblance,  similar,  though  far  less  important, 
discrepancies  ;  hence  these  latter  afford  a  valid  presumption  in 
favor  of  its  claim. 

Nearly  in  the  same  line  of  thought,  says  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  :^ 
"  The  universe  teems  with  evidences  of  design,  so  manifold,  so 

And  Tnoon-sfriuk  madness,  pining  atrophy, 
Marasmus,  and  wide-wastini;'  ])cstilence, 
Dropsies  and  asthmas,  and  joinr-rackin^r  rheums. 
Dire  was  the  tossinj;,  deep  tlic  jrroans;  Despair 
Tended  tlie  sick,  l)iisiest,  from  couch  to  couch; 
Anil  over  tlicm  triumpliant  Deatii  his  dart 
Shoolc,  but  delated  to  strilvc,  tliouiili  oCt  invoked 
Witli  vows,  as  tiieir  chief  ^rood  and  final  hope. 

HiKht  so  deform,  what  heart  of  rock  coukl  long 
Dry-eyed  behold?"  — Par.  Lost,  B.  xi,  line  477-495. 

'  Introduction  to  Analogy,  p.  70  (Malcom's  edition). 

«  Theology,  i.  170. 


DESIGN    OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  35 

diverse,  so  wonderful  as  to  overwhelm  the  mhid  with  the  con- 
victiou  that  it  has  had  an  intelligent  author.  Yet  here  and 
there  isolated  cases  of  monstrosity  appear.  It  is  u'rational, 
because  we  cannot  account  for  such  cases,  to  deny  that  the 
universe  is  the  product  of  intelligence.  So  the  Christian  need 
not  renounce  his  faith  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
although  there  may  be  some  things  about  it,  in  its  present  state, 
which  he  cannot  account  for." 

If  we  may  credit  the  philosophers,  even  the  higher  walks  of 
science  are  not  free  from  "  stumbling-blocks."  Kant,  Hamilton, 
and  Mansel  teach  that  our  reason,  that  the  necessary  laws  of 
thought  which  govern  our  mental  operations,  lead  to  absolute 
contradictions.^  Mansel  ^  observes,  "  The  conception  of  the 
Absolute  and  Infinite,  from  whatever  side  we  view  it,  appears 
encompassed  with  contradictions.  There  is  a  conti'adictiou  in 
supposing  such  an  object  to  exist,  whether  alone  or  in  conjunc- 
tion with  others ;  and  there  is  a  contrachction  in  supposing  it 
not  to  exist.  There  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  one ; 
and  there  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  many.  There 
is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  personal ;  and  there  is  a 
contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  impersonal.  It  cannot  without 
contradiction  be  represented  as  active ;  nor  without  equal  con- 
tradiction be  represented  as  inactive.  It  cannot  be  conceived 
as  the  sum  of  all  existence ;  nor  yet  can  it  be  conceived  as  a 
part  only  of  that  sum." 

Agam  he  says,  "  It  is  our  duty,  then,  to  thmk  of  God  as  per- 
sonal ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  that  he  is  infinite.  It  is 
true  that  we  cannot  reconcile  these  two  representations  with 
each  other ;  as  our  conception  of  personality  involves  attributes 
apparently  contradictory  to  the  notion  of  infinity." 

It  would  seem  that  our  prospect  of  escaping  contradictions 
by  casting  the  Bible  aside  and  betaking  ourselves  to  pliilosophy, 
is  quite  unpromising.      Notwithstanding   the   "discrepancies," 

1  Dr.  ITodsc  Theology,  i.  3G2. 

-  Limits  of  Kclit;ious  Thouj^ht,  pp.  84,  85,  and  lOG  (American  edition). 


36  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 

the  wisest  course  may  he  to  retain  the  Bible  for  the  present,  and 
await  further  developments. 

3.  The  disagreements  of  scripture  were  beyond  question 
designed  as  a  strong  incidental  proof  that  there  was  no  collusion 
among  the  sacred  writers.  Their  chfferences,  go  far  to  establish 
in  tliis  way,  the  credibility  of  these  authors. 

The  inspired  narratives  exhibit  "  substantial  agreement  with 
circumstantial  variation."  This  is  precisely  what  a  court  of 
justice  requires  in  respect  of  the  testimony  of  witnesses.  Should 
then-  evidence  agree  precisely  in  every  word  and  syllable,  this 
fact  would  be  held  by  the  court  proof  of  conspiracy.  The 
well-known  "  Ilowland  will  case,"  ^  in  New  Bedford,  some  years 
since,  affords  an  illustration  of  the  principle.  In  this  famous 
case  some  one  or  two  millions  of  dollars  was  at  stake,  and  over 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  were  expended  for  costs 
and  counsel  fees  in  two  years.  Upon  the  case  were  brought 
to  bear  the  resources  of  many  of  the  ablest  counsel  in  New 
England,  and  the  skill  of  the  most  ingenious  scieutific  experts 
of  the  United  States.  The  main  issue  of  fact  raised  was 
whether  the  signature  to  the  second  page  was  written  by  Miss 
Ilowland,  or  whether  it  was  a  forgery.  The  minute  and  exact 
resemblance  of  the  first  and  second  signatures,  in  all  points,  was 
the  grand  stumbling-block  in  the  case.  In  a  word,  the  signa- 
tures agreed  too  well. 

Now,  had  the  biblical  writers  agreed  in  all  particulars,  even 
the  minutest,  had  there  been  no  discrepancies  in  their  testimony, 
the  cry  of  "  Collusion,  Collusion ! "  would  have  passed  along 
the  whole  infidel  line,  from  Celsus  and  Porphyry  down  to 
Colenso  and  Ilenan.  We  maintain,  therefore,  that  the  very 
discrepancies,  lying  as  they  do  upon  the  surface,  without  reach- 
ing the  subject-matter,  the  kernel  of  scripture,  —  and  being, 
moreover,  capable  of  adjustment, —  are  so  many  proofs  of  its 
authenticity  aud  credibility. 

As  to  the  "  various  readings,"''  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Now 

'  Sec  Amcriciiii  Law  Review,  .Inly,  1870,  pp.  025-003. 
"  'I'liis  term  denotes  ditrereiices  in  the  spellinjj;,  elioiec,  and  arranf:;cmciit 
of  words  in  tlie  (ireeii  text. 


DESIGN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  37 

Testament,  Wordsworth^  says,  "  TJiese  discrepancies  being 
SKch  as  they  are  found  to  he,  are  of  inestimaUe  value.  They 
show  that  there  has  been  no  collusion  among  our  witnesses,  and 
that  our  manuscript  copies  of  the  Gospels,  about  five  himdred 
in  number,  and  brought  to  us  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  have 
not  been  mutilated  or  mterpolated  with  any  sinister  design ; 
that  they  have  not  been  tampered  with  by  any  religious  sect, 
for  the  sake  of  propagating  any  private  opinion  as  the  word  of 
God.  These  discrepancies  are,  in  fact,  evidences  of  the  purity 
and  integrity  of  the  sacred  text.  They  show  that  the  scriptures 
which  we  now  hold  in  our  hands  in  the  nineteenth  century,  are 
identical  with  those  which  were  received  by  the  church  in  the 
first  century  as  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  the  "  various 
readings  "  are  thus  proofs  of  the  substantial  identity  of  our  New 
Testament  with  the  inspired  original  is  clear.  The  Greek  Tes- 
tament has  come  down  to  us,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  un- 
impaired. Each  of  the  five  hundred  manuscripts,  with  its  slight 
variations  in  the  orthography,  selection,  and  collocation  of  words, 
is  an  independent  witness  to  this  fact. 

The  disagreements  of  the  sacred  writers  effectually  bar  the 
charge  of  ''  conspiracy  "  on  their  part. 

4.  Another  object  of  the  discrepancies  was,  it  may  be  presimied, 
to  lead  us  to  value  the  spirit  beyond  the  letter  of  the  scriptures,  to 
prize  the  essentials  of  Christianity  rather  than  its  form  and  acci- 
dents. Many  tlungs  point  in  the  same  direction.  For  example, 
we  have  no  portrait  of  Jesus,  no  authentic  description  of  his  per- 
son. No  wood  of  the  "  true  cross  "  remains  to  our  day.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  divine  the  reason  why  no  relics  of  this  kind  are  left  to 
us.  Suppose  the  original  text  of  the  holy  volume  had  been 
miraculously  transmitted,  in  the  very  hand-writing  of  the  authors, 
and  perfect  in  every  letter  and  figure.  The  world  would  have 
gone  mad  over  it.  Idolatry  the  most  stupendous  would  have 
accumulated  around  it.  Crusades  more  bloody  and  disastrous 
than  those  for  the  recovery  of  the  holy  sepulchre,  would  have 

'  Preface  to  Greek  Four  Gospels,  p.  xxii. 
4 


38  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

been  conducted  for  its  possession.  It  would  have  ensanguined 
and  darkened  the  whole  history  of  the  Christian  religion.  Men 
would  have  worshipped  the  letter  in  flagrant  opposition  to  the 
spirit  of  the  sacred  book.  Doubtless,  with  a  view  to  counteract 
this  tendency  to  idolatry  and  formalism,  the  scriptures  are  given 
to  us  in  their  present  condition.  Our  attention  is  thereby 
diverted  from  the  external  and  formal  featm-es  to  the  internal 
and  essential  elements  of  scripture. 

The  numerous  manuscripts  with  their  trivial  diflferences,  the 
so-called  "  imperfections  "  of  our  present  text,  together  with  the 
"  self-contradictions  "  of  the  sacred  books  —  all  afford  a  fresh 
api)lication  and  illustration  of  the  inspired  saying,  "  The  letter 
killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life." 

5.  The  biblical  discrepancies  were  plainly  appointed  as  a  test 
of  moral  character ;  and,  probabl)',  to  serve  an  important 
judicial  purpose.  They  may  be  regarded  as  constituting  no 
insignificant  element  of  the  means  and  conditions  of  man's 
2)roliation. 

There  is  a  peculiar  and  striking  analogy  and  harmony  between 
the  external  form  and  the  interior  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  Both 
alike  present  difficulties  —  sometimes  formidable  —  to  the  in- 
quirer. Both  alike  put  his  sincerity  and  firmness  to  full  proof. 
Hence,  as  Grotius '  has  fitly  said,  the  Gospel  becomes  a  touch- 
stone to  test  the  honesty  of  men's  dispositions. 

Our  Saviour's  teachings  were  often  clothed  in  forms  which 
to  the  indifferent  or  prejudiced  hearer  must  have  seemed 
obscure,  if  not  offensive.  To  the  cjiviling  and  sceptical  Jews 
he  spoke  many  tilings  in  parables,  that  seeing  they  might  see 
and  not  perceive,  and  hearing  they  might  hear  and  not  under- 
stand.^ When  he  said,  "  Except  ye  cat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  ^  he  inten- 
tionally used  such  j)hraseology  as  would  be  repugnant  to 
insincere  and  squeamish  hearers.     He  thus  tested  and  disclosed 

'  De  Vcritate  Ilclitjionis  Christiiinuc,  lil).  ii,  §  19.  '  Mark  iv.  12. 

^  Jobu  vi.  53 


DESIGN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  39 

men's  characters  and  motives,  and  sifted  out  the  chaff  among 
his  hearers.  "  From  that  time,  many  of  his  disciples  went  back, 
and  walked  no  more  with  him."  ^  The  seeming  harshness  and 
obscurity  of  liis  sayings  served  to  rid  him  of  those  followers 
wdio  were  not  of  teachable  spirit,  and  thoroughly  in  earnest, 
and  who  would  not  look  beneath  the  surface.  The  indolent 
and  superficial,  the  proud  and  fastidious,  were  discouraged  and 
re})elled  by  the  rough  husk  in  which  the  doctrinal  kernel  was 
encased. 

In  an  analogous  manner,  the  apparent  contradictions  of  the 
Bible  afford  "  opportunity  to  an  unfair  mind  for  explaining 
away  and  deceitfully  hiding  from  itself  that  evidence  which  it 
might  see." "-  Our  treatment  of  the  external  no  less  than  that 
of  the  internal  difficiilties  of  scripture  bears  an  intimate  relation 
to  our  moral  character. 

Those  who  are  disposed  to  cavil  do,  in  the  wise  arrangement 
of  God,  find  opportunities  for  caviling.  The  disposition  does  not 
miss  the  occasion. 

In  the  words  of  Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  The  very  conditions  of  a 
Revelation  that  has  been  consigned  to  various  records  in  the 
course  of  thirty  centuries  involve  a  liability  to  the  renewal  of 
exceptive  argumentation,  which  easily  finds  points  of  lodgment 

upon  so  large  a  surface The  very  same  extent  of  surface 

from  which  a  better  reason,  and  a  more  healthfid  moral  feeling 
gather  an  u-resistible  conviction  of  the  nearness  of  God  through- 
out it,  furnishes  to  an  astute  and  frigid  critical  faculty,  a  thousand 
and  one  instances  over  which  to  proclaim  a  petty  triumph." 
Or,  as  Pascal  ■*  has  beautifully  expressed  it,  God  "  willing  to  be 
revealed  to  those  who  seek  him  with  their  whole  heart,  and  hidden 
from  those  who  as  cordially  fly  from  him,  has  so  regulated  the 
means  of  knowing  him,  as  to  give  indications  of  himself,  which 
are  i)lain  to  those  who  seek  him,  and  obscure  to  those  who  seek 

^  John  vi.  66.  -  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  ii.  cliap.  vi. 

■'  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  preface. 

*  Thoujjhts,  chaj).  xiii.  See.  1  ami  2  (Andover  edition). 


40  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

him  not.  There  is  light  enough  for  those  whose  main  wish  is  to 
see ;  and  darkness  enough  for  those  of  an  opiwsite  disjDosition." 

That  the  difficulties  of  the  Bible  were  mtended,  moreover, 
to  serve  a  penal  end  seems  by  no  means  improbable.  Those 
persons  who  cherish  a  cavilling  spirit,  who  are  bent  upon  mis- 
apprehending the  truth,  and  urging  captious  and  frivolous  objec- 
tions, find  in  the  inspired  volume,  difficulties  and  disagreements 
wliich  would  seem  to  have  been  designed  as  stumblmg-stones 
for  those  which  "  stumble  at  the  word,  bemg  disobedient : 
whereunto  also  they  were  appointed."  ^  Upon  the  wilful  votaries 
of  error  God  sends  "  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a 
lie,"  ^  that  they  might  work  out  then-  own  condemnation  and 
ruin. 

"  If  we  disparage  scripture,  and  treat  it '  as  any  other  book,' 
then  Almighty  God,  who  is  the  author  of  scripture,  will  punish  us 
by  om-  own  devices.  lie  will  '  choose  our  delusions ' ;  he  will 
'  chastise  us  by  our  wickedness,'  and  '  reprove  us  by  our  back- 
slidings,'  and  'give  us  the  reward  of  our  own  hands.'  Our 
presumption  and  our  irreverence  will  be  the  instruments  of 
our  punishment."  ^  In  the  divine  government  of  this  world,  sin 
not  infrequently  carries  its  reward  in  its  own  bosom. 

"VVlien  the  difficulties  of  scripture  are  approached  with  a 
docile  and  reverent  mind,  they  may  tend  to  our  establishment 
in  the  faith  ;  but,  when  they  are  dealt  with  in  a  querulous  and 
disingenuous  manner,  they  may  become  judicial  agencies  in 
linking  to  caviling  scepticism  its  appropriate  penalty  —  even 
to  the  loss  of  the  soul. 

»lPct.  ii.  8.  »2Thcss.  ii.  11. 

*  Replies  to  Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  485  (English  edition). 


CHAPTER    III. 

RESULTS  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 

"What  is  the  effect  of  the  discrepancies,  in  relation  to  the 
integi'ity  of  the  text,  and  to  the  moral  influence  of  the  Bible  ? 

1.  They  neither  unsettle  the  text,  nor  essentially  impair  its 
integrity.  They  fail  to  vitiate  it,  in  any  appreciable  degree. 
The  conclusion  reached  by  eminent  scholars  and  critics,  after 
protracted  and  thorough  investigation,  is,  that  the  sacred  text 
has  been  transmitted  to  us  virtually  unaltered. 

Says  Isaac  Taylor,^  "  The  evidence  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  scriptures  has,  for  no 
other  reason  than  a  thought  of  the  consequences  that  are  in- 
volved in  an  admission  of  their  truth,  been  treated  with  an 
unwarrantable  disregard  of  logical  equity,  and  even  of  the 
dictates  of  common  sense.  The  poems  of  Anacreon,  the  trage- 
dies of  Sophocles,  the  plays  of  Terence,  the  epistles  of  Pliny,  ai'e 
adjudged  to  be  safe  from  the  imputation  of  spuriousness,  or  of 
material  corruption  ;  and  yet  evidence  ten  times  greater  as  to 
its  quantity,  variety,  and  force,  supports  the  genuineness  of  the 
poems  of  Isaiah,  and  the  epistles  of  Paul." 

Bishop  Butler :  ^  "  There  may  be  mistakes  of  transcribers  ; 
there  may  be  other  real  or  seeming  mistakes,  not  easy  to  be 
particularly  accounted  for ;  but  there  are  certainly  no  more 
things  of  tliis  kind  in  the  scripture,  than  what  were  to  have  been 
expected  in  books  of  such  antiquity ;  and  nothing  in  any  wise 
sulRcicnt  to  discredit  the  general  narrative." 

That  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  transmitted  to 

'  History  of  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  169-170. 
•Analogy,  p.  288  (Malcora's  edition). 

4*  41 


42  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 

us  substantially  intact,  is  a  conceded  point.  In  all  but  a  few 
unimportant  cases,  the  genuine  reading  is  settled  beyond  dispute. 
The  candid  and  scholarly  Bleek  ^  asserts  that  "  the  Hebrew 
manuscripts  have  been  preserved  unaltered  generally  ;  and  this 
in  a  measure  of  which  we  find  no  second  example  in  other 
works  which  have  been  multiplied  and  circulated  by  numerous 
manuscripts." 

Keil:^  "The  Old  Testament,  like  all  the  other  books  of 
antiquity,  has  been  projjagated  by  transcription.  And  thus  it 
has  happened,  even  in  spite  of  the  great  care  with  which  the 
Jews,  who  were  filled  with  unbounded  reverence  for  the  holy 
scriptures,  watched  over  their  preservation  and  transmission 
without  injury,  that  they  could  not  escape  the  common  lot  of 
all  ancient  books.  In  the  course  of  repeated  copying  many 
small  errors  crept  into  the  text,  and  various  readings  came  into 
existence,  which  lie  before  us  in  the  text  as  it  is  attested  in  the 
records  belonging  to  the  various  centuries.  . . .  The  copyists 
have  committed  these  errors  by  seeing  or  hearing  wrongly,  by 
faithlessness  of  memory,  and  by  other  misunderstandings ;  yet 
not  arbitrarily  or  intentionally.  And  by  none  of  them  have 
the  essential  contents  of  scripture  been  endangered." 

Even  De  Wette,^  comparing  the  Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  and 
Phoenicians  with  the  Hebrews,  observes,  "  From  the  former, 
cither  all  the  monuments  of  their  literature  have  perished  to 
the  last  fragment,  or  only  single  melancholy  ruins  survive, 
whicli  in  nothing  diminish  the  loss  of  the  rest;  while,  on  the 
contrary,  from  the  latter  there  is  still  extant  a  whole  library  of 
authors,  so  valuable  and  ancient  that  the  writings  of  the  Greeks 
are  in  comparison  extremely  young."  This  is  a  very  signif- 
icant concession  from  one  of  the  leaders  of  modern  rationalism. 

Gesenius  *  says,  "  To  state  liere  in  few  words  my  creed,  as  to 
the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  text  ui  a  critical  respect.     It  can- 

>  Intmil.  to  OM  Test.,  ii.  ZCy'y.  "  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  294,  295. 

'■^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  28  (Parker's  edilLoii). 
*  liiljlitul  Uepository,  iii.  41. 


RESULTS   OF   THE    DISCREPANCIES.  43 

not  be  denied,  that  through  the  anxious  care  of  the  Jewish 
critics,  tlie  text  has  been  in  general  very  well  preserved. 

"  In  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,"  says  Prof.  Stuart,^  "  that  have 
been  examined,  some  eight  hundred  thousand  various  readings 
actually  occur,  as  to  the  Hebrew  consonants.  How  many  as 
to  the  vowel-points  and  accents,  no  man  knows.  And  the  like 
to  this  is  true  of  the  New  Testament.  But,  at  the  same  time, 
it  is  equally  true,  that  all  these  taken  together  do  not  change 
or  materially  affect  any  important  point  of  doctrine,  precept,  or 
even  history.  A  great  proportion,  indeed  the  mass,  of  varia- 
tions in  Hebrew  manuscripts,  when  minutely  scanned,  amount 
to  notliing  more  than  the  difference  in  spelling  a  multitude  of 
Endish  words.  What  matters  it  as  to  the  meaning,  whether 
one  \vi'ites  honour  or  honor,  whether  he  writes  centre  or  center  ?  " 
Such  scholars  as  Buxtorf,  Bleek,  Havernick,  KeH,  and  others, 
afTirra  that  the  Jews  took  such  extraordinary  care  in  copying 
their  sacred  books,  "  that  it  was  a  practice  to  count  not  only  the 
number  of  verses,  but  also  that  of  the  words,  and  even  of  the 
letters  of  the  various  books,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  middle 
verse,  the  middle  word,  and  the  middle  letter  of  each  book."^ 

KeU''  remarks  that  the  Masora,  a  rabbinic  critical  work 
upon  the  Old  Testament,  contains  an  "  enumeration  of  the 
verses,  words,  and  letters  of  each  book ;  information  as  to  the 
middle  word  and  middle  letter  of  each  book ;  enumeration  of 
verses  which  contain  the  whole  consonants  of  the  alphabet,  or 
only  so  many  of  them ;  and  also  of  Avords  which  occur  so  many 
times  in  the  Bible  with  this  or  that  meaning,  and  of  words 
written  '  plene,'  or  '  defective.' " 

Parker,*  in  De  Wette,  gives,  from  Bishop  AValton,  a  list  of 
the  number  of  times  which  each  Hebrew  letter  occurs  in  the 
Old  Testament.  The  same  list  may  be  found  in  Menasseh  beu 
Israel's  Conciliator.^ 

>  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  192.     Revised  ed.  p.  173. 

-  IJIecU's  IntroiliK'tiou  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  -lol,  432. 

^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  31G. 

*  Introduetion  to  Old  Test.,  i.  357.  *  Vol.  i.  p.  250. 


44  DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 

Bishop  Herbert  Marsh  ^  has  the  foUowiug  very  just  infer- 
ence :  "  When  we  consider  the  rules  which  were  observed  by 
the  Jews  in  transcribing  the  sacred  writings,  rules  wliich  were 
carried  to  an  accuracy  that  bordered  on  superstition,  there  is 
reason  to  believe,  that  no  work  of  antiquity  has  descended  to 
the  present  age  so  free  from  alteration,  as  the  Hebrew  Bible." 

The  erudite  translator  ^  of  Outram  says,  "  There  are  not 
wanting  proofs  of  the  most  scrupulous  care  of  the  Hebrew  text 
on  the  part  of  the  Jews."  "  No  evidence  has  been  adduced  of 
their  wilful  alteration  of  any  part  of  the  Hebrew  text."  It 
was  by  such  scrupulous  and  minute  care  as  this,  that  the  Jews 
preserved  their  sacred  books  from  any  important  variation  or 
corruption. 

Moreover,  notwithstanding  its  minute  discrepancies  and  "  vari- 
ous readings,"  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  better  estab- 
lished than  that  of  any  other  ancient  book.  No  one  of  the 
so-called  "  classics,"  not  Homer  nor  Herodotus,  compares  favor- 
ably, in  this  respect,  with  the  New  Testament.  Says  Prof. 
Stowe,'  "  Of  the  manuscript  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
from  seven  hundred  to  one  thousand  of  all  kmds  have  been 
examined  already  by  critics,  and  of  these  at  least  fifty  are  more 
than  one  thousand  years  old,  and  some  are  known  to  be  at 
least  fifteen  hundred  years  old ;  while  the  oldest  of  the  Greek 
classics  scarcely  reach  the  antiquity  of  nine  hundred  years,  and 
of  these  the  number  is  very  small  indeed,  compared  with  those 
of  the  Greek  Testament," 

Among  the  Greek  classical  writers,  Herodotus  and  Plato  are 
of  the  first  importance.  The  earliest  manuscripts  of  Herodotus 
extant  are,  one  in  the  Imperial  library  at  Paris,  "  executed  in 
the  twelfth  century " ;  one  in  the  Florentine  library,  wliich 
Montfaucon  assigns  to  the  tenth  century,  and  one  in  the  library 
of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge,  England,  which  may  possibly 

'  Lectures  on  Criticism  iind  Interpretation,  p.  57. 

-  Joim  Allen,  in  Modern  .Imliiisin,  pp.  0,  7  (Seeond  edition). 

"  Uriijiu  and  History  of  liooks  of  liiblc,  p.  60. 


EESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  45 

have  been  written  in  the  ninth  century.'  One  of  the  earliest 
manuscripts  of  Plato  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford,  and 
was  executed  not  earlier  than  the  ninth  century. 

Among  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the 
Alexandrian,  written  about  a.d.  350  ;  the  Vatican,  written  about 
A.D.  325 ;  the  Sinaitic,  of  date  equally  early ;  the  Ephraim 
manuscript,  "  probably  somewhat  later  than  the  Alexandi'ian, 
but  of  great  critical  value " ;  and  the  Beza  manuscript,  dating 
about  A.D.  490.^  Other  scholars  substantially  concur  in  these 
dates,  though  Alf  ord  ^  and  Scrivener  *  assign  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript  to  the  fifth  century ;  that  is,  a.d.  400-500. 

Here,  then,  we  find  Jive  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  New 
7'estament,  the  youngest  of  which  is  about  fourteen  hundred 
years  old  ;  and  all  of  which  may  have  been  prepared  by  persons 
who  had  studied  the  original  manuscripts  written  by  the  apos- 
tles themselves. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  an  authenticated  and  settled  text  is 
concerned,  the  classics  are  very  far  behind  the  New  Testament." 
"  There  is  not,"  says  Tregelles,"  '•  such  a  mass  of  transmissiona] 
evidence  in  favor  of  any  classical  work.  The  existing  manu- 
scripts of  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  are  modern  enough  when 
compared  with  some  of  those  of  the  New  Testament." 

*  Taylor's  History  of  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  276-278;  com- 
pare Stowe,  p.  59. 

-  Stowe,  pp.  65-77.    Sec.  also,  Alford,  Prolegomena  to  Greek  Four  Gos- 
pels, pp.  107-116;  and  Scrivener,  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  pp.  76-103. 
^  Prolegomena  to  Four  Gospel.^,  p.  107. 

*  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  82. 

*  Dr.  Bentley,  in  his  annihilating  reply  to  Collins,  speaking  of  the  man- 
uscrijjt  copies  of  Terence,  the  oldest  and  best  of  which,  now  in  the  Vatican 
library,  has  "  hundreds  of  errors,"  observes,  "  I  myself  have  collated  sev- 
eral, and  do  affirm  that  I  have  seen  twenty  thousand  various  lections  in  that 
litile  author,  not  near  so  biff  as  the  New  Testament;  and  am  morally  sure, 
that  if  half  the  number  of  manuscripts  were  collated  for  Terence  with  that 
niceness  and  minuteness  which  has  been  used  in  twice  as  many  for  the 
New  Testament,  the  number  of  the  variations  would  amount  to  al)ove 
fifty  thousanil."  And  yet  Terence  is  one  of  the  best  preserved  of  the 
classic  writers.  —  Uemarks  u|)on  a  late  Discourse,  etc.   Part  i.  Sec.  32. 

*  New  Testament  Historic  l^videii'c,  p.  71. 


46  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE, 

In  the  fitting  words  of  Scrivener/  "  As  tlie  New  Testament 
far  surpasses  all  other  remains  of  antiquity  in  value  and  inter- 
est, so  are  the  copies  of  it  yet  existing  in  manuscript,  and 
dating  from  the  fourth  century  of  our  era  downwards,  far 
more  numerous  than  those  of  the  most  celebrated  writers  of 
Greece  or  Rome.  Such  as  have  been  already  discovered  and 
set  dowTi  m  catalogues  are  hardly  fewer  than  two  thousand ; 
and  many  more  must  still  Imger  unknown  in  the  monastic 
librai-ies  of  the  East.  On  the  other  hand,  manuscripts  of  the 
most  illustrious  classic  poets  and  philosophers  are  far  rarer  and 
comparatively  modern.  We  have  no  complete  copy  of  Homer 
liimself  prior  to  the  thu'teenth  century,  though  some  cousidcra- 
ble  fragments  have  been  recently  brought  to  light  which  may 
plausibly  be  assigned  to  the  fifth  century;  while  more. than  one 
work  of  high  and  deserved  re^iute  has  been  preserved  to  our 
times  only  in  a  single  copy.  Now  the  experience  we  gain,  from 
a  critical  examination  of  the  few  classical  manuscripts  that 
sur\'ive,  should  make  us  thankful  for  the  qualhy  and  abundance 
of  those  of  the  New  Testament.  Tliese  last  present  us  with  a 
vast  and  almost  inexhaustible  supply  of  materials  for  tracing  the 
history,  and  uphokluig  (at  least  within  certain  limits)  the  purity 
of  the  sacred  text ;  every  copy,  if  used  diligeutly  and  with  judg- 
ment, will  contribute  somewhat  to  these  ends.  So  far  is  the 
copiousness  of  our  stores  from  causing  doubt  or  peri)lexity  to 
the  genuine  student  of  holy  scripture,  that  it  lea<ls  liim  to  rec- 
ognize the  more  fully  its  general  integrity  hi  the  midst  of 
jiartial  variation." 

"With  equal  felicity  and  truthfulness,  Isaac  Taylor,-  on  the 
jyroof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  scriptures,  observes :  "  And  Jis 
the  facts  on  which  this  proof  depends  are  precisely  of  the  same 
kind  in  jjrofane,  as  in  sacred  literature,  and  as  the  same  princi- 
ples of  evidence  are  ajiplicable  to  all  questions  relating  to  the 
geiminencss  of  ancient  books,  it  is  highly  desirable  that  the  proof 

•  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  pp.  3,  4. 

*  History  of  Tiaiisniissiuii  of  .\ii<ieiit  Uook'^,  p.  H. 


RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  47 

of  the  genuiueness  of  the  sacred  writings  should  be  viewed,  in 
its  place,  as  forming  a  part  ouly  of  a  general  argument,  which 
bears  equally  upon  the  entire  literary  remains  of  antiquity. 
For  it  is  only  when  so  viewed,  that  the  comparative  strength 
and  .completeness  of  the  proof  which  belongs  to  this  particular 
case,  can  be  duly  estimated.  When  exhibited  m  tliis  light,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  integrity  of  the  records  of  the  Christian 
faith  is  substantiated  by  evidence  in  a  tenfold  proportion  mure 
various,  copious,  and  conclusive  ^  than  that  wliich  can  Ije  adduced 
in  support  of  any  other  ancient  writings.  If,  therefore,  the 
question  had  no  other  importance  belonging  to  it  than  what 
may  attach  to  a  pm'ely  literary  inquiry,  or  if  only  the  strict 
justice  of  the  case  were  regarded,  tlie  authenticity  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  scriptures  could  never  come  to  be  controverted, 
till  the  entire  body  of  classical  literature  had  been  proved  to  be 
spurious." 

Nor  does  the  Bible  suffer  by  comparison  with  books  of  later 
date.  For  the  text  of  Shakespeare,  wliich  has  been  in  existence 
less  than  two  hmidred  and  fifty  years,  is  '•  far  more  micertain 
and  corrupt  than  that  of  the  New  Testament,  now  over  eighteen 
centuries  old,  during  nearly  fifteen  of  wlxich  it  existed  only  in 
manuscript.  The  industry  of  collators  and  commentators  in- 
deed has  collected  a  formidable  array  of  '  various  readings  '  in 
the  Greek  text  of  the  scriptures,  but  the  number  of  those 
which  have  any  good  claim  to  be  received,  and  wliich  also  seri- 
ously affect  the  sense,  is  so  small  that  they  may  almost  be 
counted  upon  the  fingers.  With  perhaps  a  dozen  or  twenty 
exceptions,  the  text  of  every  verse  in  the  New  Testament  may 
be  said  to  be  so  far  settled  by  the  general  cojisent  of  scholars, 
that  any  dispute  as  to  its  meaning  must  relate  rather  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  words,  than  to  any  doubts  respecting  the 
words  themselves.  But  in  every  one  of  Shakespeare's  thirty- 
seven  plays,  there  are   probably  a  hundred    reatlings  still  ui 

*  The  itulics  lire  our  own. 


48  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

dispute,  a  large  proportion  of  which  materially  affect  the  mean- 
ing of  the  passages  in  which  they  occur."* 

The  probability  that  trivial  variations  would  be  found  in 
considerable  numbers  will  be  seen  when  we  reflect  that,  ac- 
cording to  Prof.  Norton's^  estimate,  there  were,  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  as  many  as  sixty  thousand  manuscript  copies 
of  the  Gospels  in  existence.  That  these  variations  are  of  slight 
importance  we  have  already  seen ;  so  that  in  spite  of  the  "  fifty 
thousand  various  readings"^  of  which  we  are  often  told,  he 
must  be  very  ignorant  or  very  mendacious  who  represents  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament  as  in  a  dubious  and  unsettled  state. 
Its  antiquity  and  all  other  circumstances  being  taken  into  the 
account,  there  is  no  other  book  which  compares  with  it  in 
possessing  a  settled  and  authenticated  text. 

The  famous  Bentley,'*  one  of  the  ablest  critics  England  has 
ever  seen,  observes  :  "  The  real  text  of  the  sacred  writers  does 
not  now  (since  the  originals  have  been  so  long  lost)  lie  in  any 
single  manuscript  or  edition,  but  is  dispersed  in  them  all.  'Tis 
comjietently  exact  indeed,  even  in  the  worst  manuscript  now 
extant ;  nor  is  one  article  of  faith  or  moral  precept  either  per- 
verted or  lost  in  them,  choose  as  awkardly  as  you  can,  choose 
the  worst  by  design,  out  of  the  whole  lump  of  readings."  Again 
he  adds,  "  Make  your  thirty  thousand  (variations)  as  many 
more,  if  numbers  of  copies  can  ever  reach  that  sum ;  all  the 
better  to  a  knowing  and  serious  reader,  who  is  thereby  more 
riclily  furnished  to  select  what  he  sees  genuine.  But  even  put 
them  into  the  hands  of  a  knave  or  a  fool,  and  yet  with  the 
most  sinistrous  and  absurd  choice,  he  shall  not  extinguish  the 
light  of  any  one  chapter,  nor  disguise  Christianity  but  that 
every  feature  of  it  will  be  the  same." 


'  North  American  Review,  quoted  in  Stowe's  Origin  and  Ilistorj'of  Books 
of  Bible,  p.  82. 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  i.  50-53. 

3  Sec  as  to  the  prol)al)le  number,  Scrivener's  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  8 

*  Itemarks  upon  a  late  Discourse  of  Free  Thinkinj^,  Part  i.  Sec.  82. 


RESULTS   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  49 

When  men  seek  to  impugn  the  credibility  of  the  Bible,  by 
alleging  "  discrepancies  "  and  "  various  readings,"  we  may  safely 
answer,  with  Prof.  Stuart,^  that  they  are  so  easily  accounted 
for,  and  of  so  little  importance,  that  "  they  make  nothing  of 
serious  imjjort  agamst  the  claims  which  the  matter,  the  manner, 
and  the  character  of  the  scrijjtures  prefer  as  the  stable  ground 
of  our  belief  and  confidence  and  obedience." 

Very  pertinently  says  Dr.  Hodge,-  "  These  apparent  discrep- 
ancies, although  numerous,  are  for  the  most  part  trivial ;  relat- 
ing in  most  cases  to  numbers  or  dates.  The  great  majority  of 
them  are  only  apparent,  and  yield  to  careful  examination. 
Many  of  them  may  be  fairly  ascribed  to  errors  of  transcribers. 
The  marvel  and  the  miracle  is,  that  there  are  so  few  of  any 
real  importance.  Considering  that  the  different  books  of  the 
Bible  were  written  not  only  by  different  authors,  but  by  men 
of  all  degrees  of  culture,  living  in  the  course  of  fifteen  hundred 
or  two  thousand  years,  it  is  altogether  unaccountable  that  they 
should  agree  perfectly,  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  the 
wi'iters  were  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God.     In  this 

respect,  as  in  all  others,  the  Bible  stands  alone The  errors 

in  matters  of  fact  which  sceptics  search  out  bear  no  proportion 
to  the  whole.  No  sane  man  would  deny  that  the  Parthenon 
was  built  of  marble,  even  if  here  and  there  a  speck  of  sandstone 
should  be  detected  in  its  structure." 

"  The  subject  of  various  readings,"  observes  President  Hop- 
kins,^ "  was  at  one  time  so  presented  as  to  alarm  and  disquiet 
those  not  acquainted  with  the  facts.  "Wlien  a  person  hears  it 
stated  that,  in  the  collation  of  the  manuscripts  for  Griesbach's 
edition  of  the  New  Testament,  as  many  as  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  various  reathngs  were  discovered,  he  is  ready  to 
suppose  that  everything  must  be  in  a  state  of  uncertainty.  A 
statement  of  the  facts  relieves  every  difficulty.     The  truth  is, 

'  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  104.    Revised  edition,  p.  180. 
"Theolo^'v,  i.  ](i9,  170. 
*  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  289. 
5 


50  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

that  not  one  in  a  thousand  makes  any  perceptible,  or  at  least 
important,  variation  in  the  meaning ;  that  they  consist  almost 
entirely  of  the  small  and  obvious  mistakes  of  transcribers,  such 
as  the  omission  or  transposition  of  letters,  errors  in  grammar, 
in  the  use  of  one  word  for  another  of  a  similar  meaning,  and 
in  clianging  the  position  of  words  in  a  sentence.  But  by  all 
the  omissions,  and  all  the  ad(htions,  contained  in  all  the  manu- 
scripts, no  fact,  no  doctrine,  no  duty  prescribed,  in  our  author- 
ized version,  is  rendered  either  obscure  or  doubtful." 

2.  IMoreover,  as  the  text  of  scripture  is  not  vitiated,  so  its 
moral  injluence  and  efficacy  is  not  essentially  impaired  by  all 
the  "  contradictions  "  which  lynx-eyed  infidelity  has  discovered, 
or  affected  to  discover,  in  it.  In  respect  to  them,  Prof.  Bush ' 
strikingly  and  felicitously  remarks,  "  Their  apparent  contrariety 
shows  at  least  with  what  confidence  the  book  of  God  appeals 
to  our  reason  on  the  ground  of  the  general  evidence  of  its  ori- 
gin, exhibiting,  as  it  does,  such  examples  of  literal  self-conflict 
in  particular  passages.  A  work  of  imposture  could  not  afford 
to  be  thus  seemingly  indifferent  to  appearances." 

We  thus  see  how  the  mighty  moral  prestige  of  the  Bible 
resolves  these  apparent  objections  into  strong  presumptions  in 
its  favor.  The  truth  of  om*  proposition  becomes  obvious  when 
we  carefully  consider  the  influence  of  the  Bible,  both  upon  in- 
dividuals and  upon  society  in  general, — its  effect  upon  mankind. 

We  cannot  specify  here,  what  every  community  furnishes, 
instances  of  men  once  dishonest,  turbulent,  profane,  sensual,  or 
drunken,  who,  under  the  influence  of  the  Biy)le,  have  thoroughly 
reformed  their  conduct  and  life,  and  l)ecomc  as  remarkable  for 
meekness,  benevolence,  purity,  and  self-control  as  they  had 
previously  l)een  notorious  for  the  opiwsitc  traits. 

Among  tliose  who  have  recognized  the  influence  of  the  Bible, 
and  bowed  reverently  to  its  authority,  we  And  many  of  the 
"foremost  men"  of  llic  race  —  the  acutest  and  most  powerful 
intellects,  the  most  distinguished  jioets,  statesmen,  and  scholars 

'  Notes  on  Exoilus,  Vol.  i.  p.  295. 


RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  51 

whom  the  -world  has  e\er  seen.  It  would  be  superfluous  to 
name  Milton  and  Dante  ;  Bacon,  Newton,  and  Leibnitz  ;  Boyle, 
Locke,  and  Butler ;  Hale  and  Grotius ;  Pascal  and  Faraday ; 
Washington  and  Wilberforce. 

Had  the  Bible  been,  as  some  assert,  full  of  irreconcilable 
discrepancies  and  insoluble  difficulties,  it  could  scarcely  have 
commanded  the  homage  of  such  minds  and  hearts  as  these. 
For,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  these  men  were  as  acute 
in  detecting  imposture,  and  as  competent  to  discriminate  between 
truth  and  falsehood  as  are,  in  our  own  time,  the  Bishop  of 
Is  atal  and  the  Duke  of  Somerset. 

In  proof  of  the  power  of  the  Bible  to  leaven  and  renovate 
society,  we  need  only  point  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  to  the 
mission  fields  and  schools  of  Intha  and  Turkey ;  we  need  but 
allude  to  the  marked  difference  between  nations  which  have 
received  the  Bible  and  those  which  have  rejected  it,  —  between 
Prussia  and  France,  between  England  and  Spain.  On  a  candid 
survey  of  the  field,  we  see  the  correctness  of  Chancellor  Kent's 
saying :  "  The  general  diffusion  of  the  Bible  is  the  most  effectual 
way  to  civilize  and  humanize  mankind  ;  to  purify  and  exalt  the 
general  system  of  public  morals ;  to  give  efficacy  to  the  just 
precejjts  of  international  and  municipal  law  ;  to  enforce  the 
observance  of  prudence,  temperance,  justice,  and  fortitude  ;  and 
to  improve  all  the  relations  of  social  and  domestic  life." 

It  was  well  affirmed  by  John  Locke,  "  That  the  holy  scrip- 
tures are  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  which  God  bestoAvs  upon 
the  sons  of  men,  is  generally  acknowledged  by  all  who  know 
anythhig  of  the  value  and  worth  of  them." 

We,  therefore,  deem  the  position  an  impregnable  one.  that 
all  the  discrepancies  and  objections  which  the  teeming  brain 
and  malignant  heart  of  infidelity  have  been  able  to  conjure  up 
and  rake  together,  do  not  in  any  essential  degree  detract  from 
the  value  of  the  inspired  volume,  nor  diminish  its  wonderful 
and  beneficent  moral  jiower. 

Nor  does  infidelity  furnish  any  substitute  for  the  Bible.     It 


52  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

points  us  all  in  vain  to  Confucius,  Zoroaster,  and  the  Vedas,  to 
the  cold  and  arrogant  teachings  of  positivism,  to  the  barren 
negations  and  ever-discordant  utterances  of  rationalism.  Never 
book  spake  like  the  Bible.  No  other  comes  home  to  the  heart 
and  conscience,  with  light  and  power  and  healing  as  does  this. 
It  teaches  man  how  to  live  and  how  to  die. 

A  celebrated  infidel  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  in  his  last 
moments,  "/a???  about  to  take  a  leap  in  the  dark."  Cast  the 
Bible  aside,  and  every  man  at  death  takes  a  ''  leap  in  the  dark." 

In  the  language  of  an  eminent  writer,^  "  Weary  human  nature 
lays  its  head  on  this  bosom,  or  it  has  nowhere  to  lay  its  head. 
Tremblers  on  the  verge  of  the  dark  and  terrible  valley  which 
parts  the  land  of  the  living  from  the  mitried  hereafter,  take 
this  hand  of  human  tenderness,  yet  godlike  strength,. or  they 
totter  into  the  gloom  without  prop  or  stay.  They  who  look 
their  last  on  the  beloved  dead  listen  to  this  voice  of  soothing 
and  peace,  else  death  is  no  uplifting  of  everlasting  doors,  and  no 
enfolding  in  everlasting  arms,  but  an  enemy  as  ajipalling  to 
the  reason  as  to  the  senses,  the  usher  to  a  charnel-house  where 
highest  faculties  and  noblest  feelings  lie  cruslied  with  the  ani- 
mal wreck;  an  infinite  tragedy,  maddening,  soul-sickening — a 
'  blackness  of  darkness  forever.' " 

"  Thy  word  is  a  lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my 
path.'"-^ 

We  cannot  but  agi'ee  with  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale,  that 
"  there  is  no  book  like  the  Bible  for  excellent  learning,  wisdom, 
and  use"  ;  we  must,  with  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  "  account  the  scrip- 
tures of  God  to  be  the  most  sublime  philosophy,"  and  to  exhibit 
"  more  siu-e  marks  of  authenticity  than  any  profane  history 
whatsoever." 

In  considering  the  solutions  hereafter  proposed,  the  legiti- 
mate force  of  a  hypothesis    shoidd    be  kept   in    mind.     If   a 

'  Dr.  Korison,  in  i;pi)lics  to  K»sa3'3  imd  Reviews,  pp.  340,  311  (2d  edition.). 
-  I's.  cxix.  100. 


RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  53 

certain  hypothesis  meets  the  exigencies  of  a  given  case,  then, 
unless  it  can  be  proven  false  or  absurd,  its  logical  value  is  to  set 
aside  any  and  all  objections,  and  to  secure  a  strong  presumption 
in  its  own  favor .^  For  instance,  it  is  said :  "  Here  is  a  case  in 
which  the  Bible  contradicts  itself."  We  reply :  "  Here  is  a 
hypothesis  which  serves  to  explain  and  reconcile  the  disagree- 
ment." Now,  unless  our  hypothesis  can  be  proven  untrue  or 
irrational,  it  stands,  and  the  objection  is  effectually  met.  In 
such  cases,  the  burden  of  proof  devolves  upon  the  objector. 

The  solutions  projjosed  in  the  following  pages  are  hypothetical; 
though,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  the  probability  amounts  to 
almost  absolute  certainty.  In  offering  these  solutions,  we 
neither  assert  nor  undertake  to  prove  that  they  are  the  only, 
or  even  the  actual  solutions ;  we  merely  affirm  that  they  are 
reasonable  explanations  of  each  case  respectively,  and,  for 
aught  that  can  be  shown  to  the  contrary,  they  may  be  the  real 
ones.  Therefore,  accordmg  to  the  principles  of  logic  and 
common  sense,  they  countervail  and  neutralize  the  discrepancies 
wliich  are  adduced,  and  leave  the  imity  and  integrity  and  divine 
authority  of  the  sacred  volume  miimpaii'ed. 

The  Discrepancies  of  Scripture  may,  perhaps,  be  most  suit- 
ably arranged  under  three   heads :  ^   the  Doctrinal,  including 

'  Prof.  Henry  Rogers  well  says,  "  The  objector  is  always  apt  to  take  it 
for  granted  that  the  discrepancy  is  real;  though  it  may  be  easy  to  suppose 
a  case  (and  a  possible  case  is  quite  sufficient  for  the  purpose)  which  would 
neutralize  the  objection.    Of  this  perverseness  (we  can  call  it  by  no  other 

name)  the  examples  arc  perpetual It  may  be  objected,  perhaps, 

that  the  gratuitous  supposition  of  some  unmentioned  fact  —  which,  if 
mentioned,  would  harmonize  the  apparently  counter-statements  of  two 
historians  —  cannot  be  admitted,  and  is,  in  fact,  a  surrender  of  the  argu- 
ment. 15ut  to  say  so,  is  only  to  betray  an  utter  ignorance  of  what  the 
argument  is.  If  an  objection  l)e  founded  on  the  alleged  absolute  contra- 
diction of  two  statements,  it  is  quite  sufflcient  to  show  any  (not  the  real, 
but  only  a  hypothetical  and  possible)  medium  of  reconciling  them;  and 
the  objection  is  in  all  fairness  dissolved;  and  this  would  bo  felt  by  the 
honest  logician,  even  if  we  did  not  know  of  any  such  instances  in  point 
of  fact.  Wc  do  know,  however,  of  many."  —  Reason  and  Faith,  pp.  401- 
40'!  (Boston  edition). 

^  For  other  methods  of  classification,  sco  Davidson's  Sacred  Ilcrmeneu- 
tics,  p.  520. 


54  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

questions  of  theology ;  the  Etliical,  pertaining  to  human  duties 
and  morals  ;  the  Historical,  relating  to  persons,  places,  numbers, 
and  time  ;  with  some  miscellaneous  cases. 

Of  such  a  vast  and  incongruous  mass  of  materials  as  has 
accumulated  during  the  investigation,  it  has  seemed  well  nigh 
impossible  to  make  a  rigorously  exact  and  clearly-defined 
classification.  Obviously,  many  of  the  following  cases  might, 
from  their  complex  or  feebly  marked  character,  fall  equally 
well  in  some  other,  or  in  more  than  one,  of  the  divisions.  In 
such  cases,  that  arrangement  has  been  adopted  which  seemed 
most  natural  and  ob^aous.  The  most  prominent  or  important 
element  in  a  difficult  passage  has  determined  the  class  to  which 
that  passage  should  be  referred. 

If  anything  has  been  lost  in  scientific  precision  and  nicety, 
it  is  believed  that  much  has  been  gained  in  simplicity,  con- 
venience, and  jiractical  utility,  by  abandonhig  the  attempt  at  a 
complex,  logical  classification,  and  grouping  the  discrepancies 
under  a  few  characteristic  heads. 


I*  A.  R  T     II. 


CHAPTER    I. 

DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES. 

I.    GOD. —  Omnipotence. 

God  can  do  all  things.  Can  not  do  some  things. 

Behold,  I  am  the  Lord,  the  God  of  And  the  Loud  was  with  Judah ;  and 

al)  flesh  :  is  there  anything  too  hard  for  he  drave  out   the    inhabitants  or  the 

me?    Jer.  xxxii.27.  mountain;  but  could  not  drive  out  tlie 

But  Jesus  beheld  fhem,  and  said  unto  inhabitants  of  the  valley,  because  they 

them,  With  men  this  is  impossible,  but  had  chariots  of  iron.    Judg.  i.  19. 

with  tjlod  all  things  are  possible.    Matt.  It  was  imposssible  for  God  to  lie. 

xix.  26.  Heb.  vi.  18. 

Omnipotence  does  not  imply  the  power  to  do  every  conceiv- 
able thing,  but  the  ability  to  do  everything  wliich  is  the  proper 
object  of  power.  For  example,  an  omnipotent  being  could  not 
cause  a  thing  to  be  existent  and  non-existent  at  the  same  instiint. 
The  very  idea  is  self-contradictory  and  absurd.  ^Vlien  it  is 
said  that  God  can  do  "  all  tlmigs,"  the  phrase  applies  to  those 
things  only  which  involve  no  inconsistency  or  absurdity. 

Accorduig  to  Voltaire,  the  quotation  from  Judges  asserts 
that  the  Lord  "  could  not  drive  out  the  uihabitauts  of  the  valley." 
The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  pronoun  "  he "  refers  to  the 
nearest  antecedent  "  Judah."  Doubtless,  the  reason  why  Judah 
was  not  helped,  at  that  time,  to  drive  out  the  dwellers  in  the 
vaUey,  was  that  too  great  success  might  have  proved,  as  it  often 
does,  detrimental.  God  gave  to  Judah  that  degree  of  prosperity 
which,  on  the  whole,  was  best  for  liim. 

The  fourth  text  refers  not  to  physical  but  to  moral  impossi- 
bility, —  such  as  is  intended  when  we  say,  "  it  was  impo.ssible 
for  Washington  to  betray  his  country."     Our  meaning  of  coui"se 

55 


56  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

is  that  it  was  incompatible  with  Washington's  character  and 

principles,  to  be  a  traitor.     In  an  analogous  yet  higher  sense, 

it  is  "  impossible  "  for  God  to  utter  falsehood. 

God  is  tired  and  rests.  Is  never  weary. 
In  six  days  the  IjORD  made  heaven        The  everlastinjr  God,  the  Lord,  the 
and  earfli,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  faint- 
rested,  and  was  refreshed.  Ex.  xxxi.  17.  eth  not,  neither  is  weary.    Isa.  xl.  28. 

"  Rested  and  was '  refreshed  "  is  merely  a  vivid  Oriental  way 
of  saying  that  he  ceased  from  the  work  of  creation,  and  took 
delight  in  surveying  that  work. 

Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson :  ^  "  To  '  rest '  here  does  not  mean  to 
seek  repose  from  fatigue,  but  to  suspend  activity  in  a  particular 
mode  of  operation,  to  cease  from  doing  thus  and  so."  Maimon- 
ides  says  that  the  word  used  in  the  parallel  text,  Ex.  xx.  11, 
properly  means  ''  ceased."  With  this  explanation  the  Septua- 
gint  agrees. 

Murphy:^  "'Refreshed'  includes,  at   all    events,  the    pure 

delight  arising  from  the  consciousness  of  a  design  accomplished, 

and  from  the  contemplation  of  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  the 

work." 

Omniscience. 

God  knows  all  thinr/s.  Tries  to  find  out  some  thinr/s. 

Thou  l;nowest  ray  downsitting  and        Now  I  linow  tliat  thou  fearest  God, 

miue  uprisiufT,  tliou  undcrstaiidest  my  seeing  thou  hast  not  witlihcid  t!iy  son, 

thought  afar  nil'.    Tliou  compassest  my  tliino  only  swj  Ironi  me.     (icii.  xxii.  12. 
path  and  my  lying  down,  and  art  ac-       The  L,oui)  thy  tiod   led  thee  these 

<|iiuint<'d  wi/li  all  my  ways.     For  tlure  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  to  hum- 

in  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but,  lo,  (>  ble  thee,  and  to  prove  thee,  to  know 

l>oui),  thou  knowcst  it  altogether.     I's.  wliat  was  in  thy  heart,  whether  thou 

cx.\xix.  2-4.  wouldest  keep  his  commandments,  or 

I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  /  try  the  no.     L)eut.  viii.  2. 
reins.    .Jer.  xvii.  10.  Thou   shalt   not    hearken   unto    the 

■    Tliou  ixrd,  which  knowest  the  hearts  words  of  that  jirojjhet.  or  that  dreamer 

ofall»n<".     Acts  i.  24.  of  di'eams;    for   the   J.onu   your   dod 

All  things  fire  naked  and  ojiened  unto  proveth  you,  to  know  whether  ye  love 

the  eyes' of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  the  LouoyourGod  with  all  your  heart, 

do.    Heb.  iv.  13.  and  with  ail  your  soul.    Deut.  xiii.  3. 

In  the  texts  at  tlie  riglit,  the  language  is  acconunodated  to 

the  human  understanding,  uttered,  as  it  were,  from  man's  point 

of  view.     By  the  testing  jirocess  applied  to  Abraham  and  the 

'  Man  in  ficncsis  and  in  (!eolo>j:y,  p.  114. 

■•^  In  tlic  sul)se<|uent  i)a;:cs,  wlien  an  important qnotation  from  an  autiior 
is  tiiven  witliout  siiccilic  references,  the  citation  is  jiciicrally  from  that 
author'b  commentary  upon  the  text  uuder  cousiderution. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  57 

Israelites,  the  knowledge  which  had  lain  hidden  in  the  divine 
mind  was  revealed  and  verified. 

The  words  addressed  to  Abraham,  "  Now  I  know  that,"  etc., 
are  equivalent  to  saying,  Now  I  have  established  by  actual 
experiment  that  which  I  previously  knew.  I  have  demon- 
strated, made  manifest  by  evident  proof,  my  knowledge  of  thy 
character. 

Murphy  :  "  The  original  /  have  known  denotes  an  eventual 
knowing,  a  discovering  by  actual  experiment ;  and  this  observ- 
able probation  of  Abraham  was  necessary  for  the  judicial  eye 
of  God,  who  is  to  govern  the  world,  and  for  the  conscience  of 
man,  who  is  to  be  instructed  by  practice  as  well  as  principle." 

The  language  in  Genesis  may  be  illustrated  as  follows  :  A 
chemical  jirofessor,  lecturing  to  his  class,  says :  "  Now  I  will 
apply  an  acid  to  this  substance,  and  see  what  the  result  will 
be."  He  speaks  in  this  way,  although  he  knows  perfectly  well 
beforehand.  Having  performed  the  experiment,  he  says,  "  I 
now  know  that  such  and  such  results  will  follow."  In  saying 
this,  he  puts  himself  in  the  place  of  the  class,  and  speaks  from 
their  stand-point. 

The  texts  from  Deut.  mean  simply.  The  Lord  hath  dealt 
with  thee  as  if  he  were  ignorant,  and  wished  to  ascertain  thy 
sentiments  toward  him ;  he  hath  jnit  thee  to  as  severe  a  test  as 
would  be  requisite  for  discovering  the  secrets  of  thine  heart. 
Such  is  the  interpretation  which  men  would  give  to  his  treat- 
ment of  thee. 

Forfjets  not  his  saints.  Temporarily  forgot  Noah. 

Yea,  thpy  may  forget,  yet  will  I  not  And  God  remembered  Koah.  Gen. 
forget  thee.    isa.  xlix.  15.  viii.  1. 

The  latter  text  is  shaped  "  after  the  manner  of  men."  God 
left  Noah  in  the  ark,  for  many  long  months,  as  if  he  had  for- 
gotten him.     He  then  "  put  forth  a  token  of  his  remembrance." 

Does  not  sleep.  Sometimes  sleeps. 

Behold  ho  that  keepeth  Israel  shall  Awake,  why  sleepest  thou,  Ol-ord? 
neither  slumber  nor  sleep.   I's.  cxxi.  4.    arise,  cast  ««  not  oll'for  ever.  I's.  xliv  23. 

Sometimes  God,  in  wisdom,  defers  the  punislmunt  of  the 


58  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

wicked,  and  the  deliverance  of  liis  people,  so  that  he  seems 
oblivious  of  both.  He  gives  no  sign  of  activity  with  reference 
to  either,  so  that  a  superficial  observer  might  say,  "  he  sleeps." 
The  silence,  the  long-suffermg  of  God  is  attributed  to  indiffer- 
ence or  lack  of  knowledge  on  his  part.^ 

O  m  nipresence. 

God  everyichere  present.  Not  in  some  places. 

■\Vhither  shall  I  jro  from  tliy  Spirit?  Adam  and  his  wife  hid  themselves 

or  whitlier  sliall  1  llee  from  thy  pres-  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  God 

ence?    If  I  ascend  u])  into  heaven,  thou  amongst  the  trees  of  the  garden.    Gen. 

art  there:  if  I  make^iy  bed  in  hell,  be-  iii.  H- 

hold,  tliou  art  there.    If\  take  the  wings  And  Cain  went  out  from  the  presence 

of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  utter-  of  the  Lokd.    Gen.  iv.  Ii3. 

most  parts  of  the  sea:  even  there  shall  And  the  Lord  came  down  to  sec  the 

thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  city  and  the  tower,  which  the  children 

shall  hold  me.     I's.  cxxxix.  7-10.  of  men  biiilded      Gen.  xi.  5. 

Thus  saith  the  Lokd,  The  heaven  is  And  the  Loud  said.  Because  the  cry 

my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  ray  foot-  of  .Sodom  and  (Jomorrah  is  great,  and 

stool.    Isa.  Ixvi.  1.  because  their  sin  is   very  grievous;  I 

Am  I  a  (iod  at  liand  saith  the  Lokd,  will  go  down  now.  and  see  whether 

and  not  a  God  afar  off?    Can  any  hide  they  have  done  altogether  according  to 

himself  in  secret  places  that  I  shall  not  the'cry  of  it,  which  has  come  unto  me; 

see  him?  saith  the  Lord.    Do  not  I  lill  and  if  not  I  will  know  Gen.  xviii.  20, 21. 

heaven  and  earth?  saith  the  Loud.  .Jer.  The  Loud  i)assed  by, and  a  great  and 

xxiii.  23,  24.  strong  wind  rent  the  mountains,  and 

Though   they  dig   into  hell,  thence  brake  in   pieces   tlie  rocks  bel'oie  the 

shall  my  hand  take  them;  though  they  Lord;   but  the  Loud  iras  not  in  the 

climb  up  to  heaven,  thence  will  I  bring  wind:    and   after   the   wind  an   carth- 

them   down  :    And   though    they  hide  (luakc;  lint  the  Lord  iras  not  in  the 

themselves  in  the  to))  of  (armel,  I  will  eartlniuake:   and  after  the  earth(|uake 

search  and  take  them  out  thence;  and  a  lire;  6((Mhe  Lord  u-a.s- not  in  the  tire: 

though  they  be  hid  from  my  sight  in  and  after  the  lire  a  still  small  voice, 

the   bottom   of  the   sea.  thence  will   I  1  Kings  xix.  11.  12. 

command  the  serpent,  and  he  shall  bite  Jonah  rose  up  to  flee  unto  Tarshish 

them.    Amos  ix  2,3.  from  the  presence  of  the  Loud.    Jonah 

1.3. 

The  •'  presence  of  the  Lord,"  from  which  Adam  liid  himself, 
and  Cain  and  Jonah  fled,  was  the  visible  and  special  manifesta- 
tion of  God  to  them  at  the  time  ;  or  else  it  denotes  the  place 
where  that  manifestation  was  made. 

According  to  Henderson,^  either  may  be  meant. 

The  builders  of  Babel  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  had 
pursued  their  wicked  course,  as  far  as  divine  mercy  could 
permit,  (xod  had  been  far  away  from  these  corrupt  men ;  he 
was  "  not  in  all  their  thoughts."  He  took  the  sword  of  justice 
and  "  came  down  "  into  the  suherc  of  their  consciousness,  in  a 
signal  and  tcrriljle  manner. 

'  See  Ps.  1.  21  iind  Ixxiii.  11. 

*  On  Minor  Proplicts,  p.  202  (Andovcr  edition). 


DOCTRINAL    DISCREPANCIES.  69 

Rabbi  Schelomo  strikingly  observes  that  these  texts  represent 
God  as  "  coming  down  from  his  throne  of  mercies  to  his  throne 
of  judgment," — as  if  mercy  were  a  more  serene,  exalted,  and 
glorious  attribute  than  justice.  Such  expressions  as  "  God 
came  down,"  the  .Jewish  writers  term  "  the  tongue,  or  language, 
of  the  event,"  —  that  is,  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  event, 
the  lesson  it  was  designed  to  teach.  In  such  cases,  God's  acts 
are  translated  into  words.  The  "  language  of  the  event "  is, 
God  comes  down,  interposes,  to  frustrate  certain  mad  schemes 
of  ambition.^ 

Maimonides  '^  acutely  suggests  that,  since  the  word  "  ascend  " 
is  properly  appUed  to  the  mind  when  it  contemplates  noble 
and  elevated  objects,  and  "  descend "  when  it  turns  toward 
things  of  a  low  and  unworthy  character,  it  follows  that  when 
the  Most  High  turns  his  thoughts  toward  man  for  any  purpose, 
it  may  be  said  that  God  "  descends  "  or  "  comes  down." 

Prof.  Murphy  thinks  that,  as  the  Lord,  after  watching  over 
Noah  during  the  deluge,  had  withdrawn  his  visible  and  gracious 
presence  from  the  earth,  when  he  agam  directly  interposes  in 
himian  affairs,  there  is  propriety  in  saying,  "  The  Lord  came 
down." 

God  was  not  in  the  wind,  the  earthquake,  or  the  fire ;  that 
is,  he  did  not,  upon  that  occasion,  choose  any  one  of  these  as  the 
symbol  of  his  presence,  as  his  medium  of  communication  and 
manifestation.  He  did  not  ^eak  in  or  hy  these,  but  by  "  the 
stUl  small  voice." 

Herder:^  "The  vision  would  seem  designed  to  teach  the 
prophet,  who,  in  liis  fiery  zeal  for  reformation,  would  change 
everything  by  stormy  violence,  the  gentle  movements  of  God's 
providence,  and  to  exliibit  the  mildness  and  longsuffering,  of 
which,  the  voice  spoke  to  Moses.*  Hence  the  beautiful  change 
in  the  phenomena  of  the  vision," 

'  Sec  Note  to  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  364  (American  edition). 
-  Morch  Nevochim.    Munk's  French  version,  Vol.  i.  pp.  56,  57. 
^  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  ii.  40  (Marsh's  translation). 
*  See  Ex.  xxxiv.  5-7. 


60  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Eternity. 

God  from  everlasting.  His  orifjin  in  time. 

Before  the  mountains  were  brought        God  came  from  Teman,  and  the  Holy 
forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the    One  from  mount  I'aran.    llab.  iii.  3. 
earth  and  the  world,  even  from  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting  thou  art  God. 
Ts.  xc.  2. 

The  second  text  has,  singularly  enough,  been  adduced  as 
teacliing  that  God  originated  in  time. 

The  passage  simply  refers  to  the  wonderful  displays  of  divine 
power  and  glory  which  the  Israelites  witnessed  in  connection 
with  the  giving  of  the  law ;  ^  Teman  and  Paran  being  "  the 
regions  to  the  south  of  Palestine  generally,  as  the  theatre  of 
the  divine  manifestations  to  Israel."  This  is  clear  from  the 
parallel  text,  "  The  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  up  from 
Seir  unto  them ;  he  shined  forth  from  mount  Paran,  and  he 
came  with  ten  thousands  of  saints ;  from  his  right  hand  went 
a  fiery  law  for  them."  ^ 

Unity. 

God  is  One.  Plurality  of  Divine  Beings. 

Hear  O  Israel :  The  Lord  our  God  is        And  (iod  said,  Let  us  make  man  in 

one  IX)KD.    Deut.  vi.  4.  our  image  after  our  likeness.    Gen.  1.26. 

See  now  that  I  errn  I  am  he,  and  (here       And  the  Lord  God  said.  Behold,  the 

is  no  frod  witli  nic.  Deut.  xxxii.  31*.  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know 

I  nm  the  I^OUD,  and  t/irre  is  none  else,     good  and  evil.     Gen.  iii.  22. 
there  is  no  God  besides  me.     Isa.  xlv.  5.        And  the  Loud  appeared  unto  him  in 
And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they    the  jjjains  of  Manire:  and  he  sat  in  the 
mifrht  know  thee,  the  only  true  God.    tent  dour  in  the  heat  of  the  day :  and  he 
John  xvii.  3.  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  looked,  and,  lo, 

But  to  us  there  is  Init  one  God,  the  three  men  stood  by  him:  and  when  he 
Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  saw  them,  he  ran  to  meet  tlicm  from  the 
in  him.    1  Cor.  viii.  6.  tent  door,  and  bowed  himself  toward 

the  ground,  and  said.  My  Lord,  if  now 
1  have  found  favor  in  thy  sight.  Gen. 
xviii.  1-3. 

Worship  him,  all  ye  gods.  Psalm 
xcvii.  7. 

The  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit,  hath 
sent  me.    Isa.  xlviii.  IG. 

[For  there  are  three  that  bear  record 
in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  and 
the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these  three  are 
one.    1  John  v.  7]. 

The  first  two  texts  from  Genesis  have  the  word  for  "  God  " 
(Elohim)  in  the  plural  form.  Gesenius  considers  this  a  "  plural 
of  excellence  or  majesty  "  ;  Nordheimcr,  a  "  plural  of  prc-emi- 

'  So  Aliarhiviicl,  Alien  E/,r:i,  Eichhom,  Kwiikl,  Henderson,  Herder,  Lowth, 
Mil  iiaelis,  the  Tarfiuin,  etc. 
-  iX'Ut.  xxxiii.  2. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  61 

nence  "  ;  Baumgarten,  a  "  numerical  [)lural,  originally  denoting 
God  and  angels  together  "  ;  Delitzsch,  a  "  plural  of  intensity  "  ; 
Fuerst,  as  used  "  because  the  ancients  conceived  of  the  Deity  as 
an  aggregate  of  many  infinite  forces."  Bush  thinks  the  plural 
implies  "  greater  fulness,  emphasis,  and  intensity  of  meaning  "  ; 
Lange  ^  takes  it  as  denoting  "  intense  fulness,"  and  Hengsten- 
berg  "^  says,  "  it  calls  attention  to  the  infinite  riches  and  the  in- 
exhaustible fulness  contained  in  the  one  divine  being," 

Ewald : ^  "It  was  an  antique  usage,  more  especially  in  this 
Semitic  tribe,  to  designate  God,  as  also  every  other  superior, 
externally  by  a  plural  form,  by  which  no  more  than  the  sense 
of  a  kind  of  dignity  and  reverence  was  simply  expressed." 

As  to  the  plural  pronouns,  "  us  "  and  "  our,"  which  God  here 
employs,  Aben  Ezra  thinks  that  he  addresses  the  Intelligences ; 
Philo,  Delitzsch,  and  others,  that  he  spoke  to  the  angels; 
Davidson,  with  Sedaiah  a  Gaon,  that  he  spoke  like  a  sovereign, 
"  We  the  king  " :  Kalisch,  Tuch,  and  Bush  in  substance  deem 
it  the  plural  "  employed  in  deliberations  and  self -exhortations  " ; 
Maimonides  *  asserts  that  God  is  addressing  the  earth  or  the 
nature  already  created ;  Keil  that  he  is  speaking  of  and  with 
liimself  in  the  plural  number,  "  with  reference  to  the  fulness  of 
the  divine  powers  and  essences  which  he  possesses."  On  the 
other  hand,  Lange  thinks  the  phraseology  may  "  point  to  the 
germinal  view  of  a  distinction  in  the  divine  personality,"  and 
Murphy  that  it  "  indicates  a  plurality  of  persons  or  hypostases 
in  the  Divine  Being." 

"We  thus  see  that  the  above  expressions  are  susceptible  of 
•  several  reasonable  interpretations  consistent  with  monotheistic 
principles. 

With  reference  to  Abraham  and  the  "  three  men  "  —  super- 
human beings  in  the  form  of  man,  —  the  patriarch  appeared 

*  Introduction  to  Genesis,  pp.  Ill,  112  (English  translation). 

*  Genuineness  of  Pent.  i.  273. 

'  History  of  Israel,  ii.  38  (JIartineau's  eilition). 
^  Sec  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  173,  note. 
6 


62  DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 

to  single  out  one  as  pre-eminent  among  the  three,  whom  he 
addressed  as  "  My  Lord."  Keil  says,  "  Jehovah  and  two 
angels :  all  three  in  human  form."  Murphy :  "  It  appears  that 
of  the  three  men,  one,  at  all  events,  was  the  Lord,  who,  when 
the  other  two  went  towards  Sodom,  remained  with  Abraham 
while  he  made  his  intercession  for  Sodom,  and  afterward  he  also 
went  his  way."  Lange  :  "  Abraham  instantly  recognizes  among 
the  tlu-ee  the  one  whom  he  addresses  as  the  Lord  in  a  religious 
sense,  who  afterwards  appears  as  Jehovah,  and  was  clearly  dis- 
tinguished from  the  two  accompanying  angels." 

As  to  the  quotation  from  Psalms,  Maimonides  and  David 
Kimchi  say  that  the  word  "  Elohim,"  in  this  case,  means  "  angelic 
powers."  Others  that  it  means  "  magistrates  "  or  "  judges," 
as  in  Exodus  xxii.  8,  9.  28.^  Alexander  and  Ilengstenberg 
explain  it  as  meaning  "  false  gods  " ;  Delitzsch,  as  "  the  super- 
human powers  deified  by  the  heathen."  The  Syriac  Peshito 
reads,  "  all  ye  his  angels."  ^ 

Isa.  xlviii.  1 6  is  ambiguous  in  the  original.  "  It  may  mean 
"  Jehovah  and  his  Spirit  have  sent  me,"  or  "  Jehovah  hath  sent 
both  me  and  liis  Spirit."     So  Delitzsch  :  "  The  Spirit  is  not 

spoken  of  here  as  joining  in  the  sending The  meaning  is, 

that  it  is  also  sent,  i.e.  sent  in  and  with  the  servant  of  Jehovah, 
who  is  speaking  here." 

1  John  V.  7  is  a  spurious  passage.  It  is  found  in  no  Greek 
manuscript  before  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century,  and  in  no 
early  version.  It  is  rejected  by  Alford,  Abbot,  Blcek,  Scriv- 
ener, Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Wordsworth,  and  most  modern 
critics.^ 

It  should  be  observed  tluit  the  texts  of  the  first  series  teach 
unequivocally  and  designedly  the!  unity  of  God,  while  those  of 
the  second  series,  —  intended  primarily  to  teach  otlicr  truths  — 
are  fairly  explicable  in  harmony  with  the  former  class. 

'  In  tbe  Hebrew,  verses  7,  8,  and  27. 

^  Oliver's  Translation  of  Syriae  Psalter. 

*  See  Orme's  Mem.  of  Controv.  on  1  John  v.  7  (New  York,  1866). 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES. 


63 


God,  a  Spirit. 
A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones. 
Luke  xxiv.  3i). 
God  is  a  Spirit,    John  iv.  24. 


I'm^naterialiti/. 

Has  a  materiaZ  hotly  and  organs. 

Tables  of  stone.written  with  the  finger 
of  (jod.     Ex.  xxxi.  18. 

He  shall  cover  thee  with  his  feathers, 
and  under  his  wings  shalt  thou  trust. 
Ps.  xci.4. 

He  had  horns  coming  out  of  his  hand. 
Hab.  iii.  4. 

These  texts,  which  represent  God  as  having  hands,  fingers, 
wings,  feathers,  horns,  and  the  like,  are  simply  the  bold  figures 
and  startling  hyperboles  in  which  the  Orientals  are  wont  to 
indulge.  They  would  never,  for  a  moment,  think  of  being 
understood  literally  in  using  them. 

"  Finger  of  God "  is  his  direct  agency :  his  "  wings "  and 
"  feathers  "  are  his  protecting  care,  set  forth  by  an  allusion  to 
the  bird  hovering  over  and  guarding  her  tender  young.^ 

Henderson,  Delitzsch,  Noyes,  and  Cowles  agree  substantially 
in  rendering  Ilab.  iii.  4,  ''  Eays  streamed  from  his  hand  "  ;  —  a 
decided  imj)rovement  upon  our  version. 

ItnmutahiUty. 

God,  unchangeable.  Repents,  and  changes  hisj)lans. 

God  i.s  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lip;        I  will  not  go  up  in  the  midst  of  thee; 

neither  the  son  of  man,  tliat  he  should    for  thou  art  a  stiflnecked  people :  lest  I 

repent:  hath  he  said,  and  sliall  he  not    consume  thee  in  the  way.    And  he  said 

do  it?  or  hath  bespoken,  and  shall  he    unto  him.  If  thy  presence  go  not  with 

not  make  it  good  ?    Kum.  xxiii.  19.         me,  carry  us  not  up  hence.    And  the 

And  also  the  .Strength  of  Israel  will    Lord  said  unto  Moses,  I  will  do  this 

not  lie  nor  rejient :  for  he  As  not  a  man,     thing  also  that  thou  hast  sjjoken  :  3Iy 

that  he  should  repent.  1  !sam.  xv.  29.        presence  shall  go  wtth  flice,  and  1  will 

1  the  Lord  have  spoken  it :  it  shall    give  thee  rest.     F.x.  xx.xiii.  3,  1.5,  17, 14. 

come  to  pass,  and  1  will  do  it;  I  will        Doubtlo-s  ye  shall  not  come  into  the 

not  go  back,  neither  will  1  spare,  neither    land.  ct»ircriiiii(/  which  I  sware  to  make 

will  I  repent,     l-.zek.  .xxiv.  14.  you  dwell  therein.     Num.  xiv.  30. 

Fori  am  the  Lord,  1  change  not.        The  Lord  God  of  Israel  saith,  I  said 

Slal.  iii  G.  indeed //;a^  thy  house,  and  the  house  of 

The  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is    thy  father,  should  walk  before  me  for- 

no  variableness,  neithorshadow  of  turn-    ever ;  but  now  the  Loud  saith,  Be  it  far 

iug.    Jas.  i.  17.  from  me; Heboid  the  days  come, 

that  1  will  cut  off  thine  arm,  "and  the 
arm  of  thy  father's  house,  that  there 
shall  not  be  an  old  man  in  thine  house. 
1  f^am.  ii.  30,  31. 

Then  came  the  word  of  the  Louu 
unto  Samuel,  saying:  It  repenteth  mo 
that  I  have  set  up  .*<aul  to  be  king:  for 
he  is  turned  back  from  following  me, 
and  hath  not  performed  my  command- 
ments. 1  Sam.  XV.  10,  11. 
In  those  days  was  Hezekiah  sick  unto 


*  See  Dcul.  xxxii.  11. 


64  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 


Ood,  unchangeable.  Repents,  and  chanrjes  his  plans. 

death.  And  the  prophet  Isaiah  tlio  son 
of  Amoz  came  to  liim,  and  said  unto 
him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Set  tliino 
house  in  order;  for  thou  shalt  die,  and 
not  live.  Then  lie  turned  his  face  to 
the  wall,  and  prayed  unto  the  Lord. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  afore  Isaiah 

was  gone  out  into  the  middle  court,  that 
the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him, 
saying,  Turn  again,  and  tell  Hezekiah 
the  captain  of  my  people,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  the  God  of  David  thy  lather, 
1  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen 
thy  tears:  behold,  1  will  heal  thee:  on 
the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  up  unto  the 
house  of  the  Lord.  And  1  will  add 
unto  thy  days  lifteen  years.  2  Kings 
XX.  1,  4,  5,  G. 

Thou  hast  forsaken  me,  saith  the 
Lord,  thou  art  gone  backward  :  there- 
fore will  I  stretch  out  my  hand  against 
thee, and  destroy  thee;  1  am  weary  with 
repenting.    Jer.  xv.  6. 

And  God  saw  their  works,  that  they 
turned  from  their  evil  way;  and  God 
repented  of  the  evil  that  he  had  said 
that  he  would  do  unto  them;  and  he 
did  it  not.     Jonah  iii.  10. 

In  respect  to  his  essence,  his  attributes,  his  moral  character, 
and  his  inflexible  determination  to  punish  sin  and  reward  virtue, 
God  is  "  without  variableness  or  shadow  of  turning." 

Again,  some  of  his  declarations  are  absolute  and  uncon- 
ditional; the  greater  part,  however,  including  promises  and 
threatenings,  turn  ujion  conditions  either  expressed  or  implied. 
The  following  passage  is  a  very  explicit  statement  of  a  great 
princii^le  in  the  divine  administration,  —  of  God's  plan  or  rule 
of  conduct  in  dealing  with  men  :  "  At  what  instant  I  shall  speak 
concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  khigdom,  to  jiluck  up, 
and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  it;  if  that  nation,  against 
whom  I  have  pronoimced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of 
the  evil  that  1  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  instant  I 
shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to 
build  and  to  plant  it ;  if  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it  obey  not 
my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good,  wherewith  I  said  I  would 
benefit  them."'  Here  is  brought  clearly  to  view  the  underlying 
condition,  wliich,  if  not  expressed,  is  implied,  in  God's  promises 

'  Jcrciniiih  xviii.  7-10. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  65 

and  threats.  "VYlienever  God,  in  consequence  of  a  change  of 
character  in  certain  persons,  does  not  execute  the  threats  or  fulfil 
the  promises  he  had  made  to  them,  the  explanation  is  obvious. 
In  every  such  case,  the  change  is  in  man,  rather  than  m  God. 
For  example,  God  has  promised  blessings  to  the  righteous  and 
threatened  the  wicked  with  punishment.  Suppose  a  righteous 
man  should  turn  and  become  wicked.  He  is  no  longer  the 
man  whom  God  promised  to  bless.  He  occupies  a  different 
relation  toward  God.  The  promise  was  made  to  an  entirely 
different  character. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  wicked  man  repents  and  becomes  good. 
He  is  not  now  the  individual  whom  God  threatened.  He  sus- 
tains another  relation  to  his  Maker.  He  has  passed  out  of  the 
sphere  of  the  divine  displeasure  into  that  of  the  divine  love. 
Yet  all  this  while,  there  is  no  change  in  God.  His  attitude 
toward  sin  and  sinners,  on  the  one  hand,  and  toward  goodness 
and  the  good  on  the  other,  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
forever.  It  is  precisely  because  God  is  immutable,  that  his 
relation  to  men,  and  his  treatment  of  them  vary  with  the  changes 
in  their  character  and  conduct.  In  a  word,  he  changes  because 
he  is  unchangeable. 

A  homely  illustration  may  be  permitted.  Suppose  a"  rock  to 
be  located  at  the  centre  of  a  circle  one  mile  in  diameter.  A 
man  starts  to  walk  around  the  circle.  On  starting  he  is  due 
north  from  the  rock,  which  consequently  bears  due  south  from 
him.  After  travelling  a  while,  he  comes  to  be  due  east  from 
the  rock,  and  that  due  west  from  him.  Now  the  rock  does  not 
move,  yet  its  direction  from  the  man  changes  with  every  step 
he  takes.  In  a  somewhat  analogous  manner,  God's  aspect  and 
feelings  toward  men  change  as  they  change.  That  is,  in  the 
words  of  Whately,^  "  A  change  effected  in  one  of  two  objects 
having  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  may  have  the  same 
practical  result  as  if  it  had  taken  place  in  the  other." 

WoUaston :  '^  "  The  respect  or    relation  which  lies  between 

*  Rhetoric,  Part  i.  chap.  3.  Sec.  3.       ^  Religion  of  Nature,  pp.  115, 116. 
6* 


66  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

God,  considered  as  an  unchangeable  being,  and  one  that  is 
humble,  and  supplicates,  and  endeavors  to  qualify  himself  for 
mercy,  cannot  be  the  same  with  that  wliich  lies  between  the 
same  unchangeable  God,  and  one  that  is  obstinate,  and  will  not 
supplicate,  or  endeavor  to  qualify  liimself.  . .  •  By  an  alteration 
in  ourselves,  we  may  alter  the  relation  or  respect  lying  between 
him  and  us."  ^  To  sum  up,  if  man  changes,  the  very  immuta- 
hility  of  God's  character  requires  that  his  feelings  should  change 
toward  the  changed  man. 

Murphy : ^  "To  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  every  act  of 
the  divine  will,  of  creative  power,  or  of  interference  with  the 
order  of  nature,  seems  at  variance  with  inflexibility  of  purpose. 
But,  in  the  first  place,  man  has  a  finite  mind,  and  a  limited 
sphere  of  observation,  and  therefore  is  not  able  to  conceive  or 
express  thoughts  or  acts  exactly  as  they  are  in  God,  but  only 
as  they  are  in  himself.  Secondly,  God  is  a  spirit,  and  therefore 
has  the  attributes  of  personality,  freedom,  and  holiness ;  and 
the  passage  before  us  is  designed  to  set  forth  these  in  all  the 
reality  of  their  action,  and  thereby  to  distinguish  the  freedom 
of  the  eternal  mind  from  the  fatalism  of  inert  matter.  Hence, 
thirdly,  these  statements  represent  real  jirocesses  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  analogous  at  least  to  those  of  the  human." 

Those  passages  which  speak  of  God  as  "  repenting "  are 
figurative.  They  are  the  "  language  of  the  event,"  the  divine 
acts  interpreted  in  words.  We  see  an  artist  executing  a  picture. 
Having  completed,  he  sm'veys  it,  then,  without  a  word,  takes 
his  brush  and  effaces  it.  We  say  at  once,  "  he  repented  that 
he  had  made  it."  We  thus  intcrjirct  his  action  ;  we  assume 
that  such  were  his  feelings.  So  God  performed  such  outward 
acts  with  reference  to  the  antediluvians  and  others,  that,  if  they 
had  been  performed  by  a  man,  we  should  say  "  lie  repented  of 

'  Tliis  author  has  also  an  illustrative  formula  wliich  will  lie  ai)prcciatc(l 
by  the  mathcrr.aticiaii;  "  The  ratio  of  G  lo  M  +  q  is  dilTcrciU  I'loin  that 
of  (I  to  M  — q;  ami  jct  O  remains  unaltei-cd." 

*  Commentary  on  Genesis,  vi.  6. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  67 

what  he  had  previously  said  or  done."  Such  is  the  construction 
we  should  naturally  jjut  upon  his  conduct.  The  language  is 
evidently  accommodated  to  our  ideas  of  things. 

Dr.  Davidson :  ^  "  When  repentance  is  attributed  to  God,  it 
implies  a  change  in  his  mode  of  dealing  with  men,  such  as 
would  indicate  on  their  part  a  change  of  purpose." 

Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  God,  in  order  to  address  liimself  impres- 
sively to  us,  frequently  personates  a  creature,  or  speaks  to  us 
after  the  manner  of  men.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
displeasure  of  God  against  the  wickedness  of  men  could  have 
been  fully  expressed  in  literal  terms,  or  with  anything  like  the 
effect  produced  by  metaphorical  language." 

Prof.  Mansel :  ^  "  The  representations  of  God  which  scrip- 
ture presents  to  us  may  be  shown  to  be  analogous  to  those 
which  the  laws  of  our  mind  require  us  to  form  ;  and,  therefore 
such  as  may  naturally  be  supposed  to  have  emanated  from  the 
same  Author." 

God's  threat  not  to  accomjiany  the  Israelites  was  unquestion- 
ably conditional.  As  Scott  says,  "  such  declarations  rather 
express  what  God  might  justly  do,  what  it  would  become  liim 
to  do,  and  what  he  would  do,  were  it  not  for  some  intervening 
consideration,  than  his  irreversible  purpose  ;  and  always  imply 
a  reserved  exception  in  case  the  party  oifendhig  were  truly 
penitent." 

As  to  the  quotation  from  1  Sam.  ii.,  by  Eli's  father's  house 
we  are  evidently  to  understand  the  house  of  Aaron,  from 
whom  Eli  was  descended  through  Ithamar.  It  was  Aaron,  the 
tribe-father  of  Eli,  who  received  the  promise  that  his  house 
should  walk  forever  before  the  Lord  in  priestly  service.  This 
promise,  obviously  conditional,  was  henceforth  withdrawn  witli 
regard  to  a  certain  branch  of  Aaron's  family,  and  on  account  of 
the  sinfulness  of  that  branch.  So  far  as  Eli  and  his  sons  were 
concerned,  the  Lord  would  uoav  cut  off  the  arm  of  Aaron's  house. 

*  Sacrcil  llenncncutics,  p.  527.  "-  Works,  i.  GG9. 

^  Limits  of  Kcli^iious  Tliuufilit,  p.  Gl  (Amcriciin  ctlitioii). 


68  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

By  the  expression,  "  be  it  far  from  me,"  God  does  not,  says 
Keil,  revoke  his  previous  promise,  but  simply  denounces  a  false 
trust  therein  as  irreconcilable  with  his  holiness.  That  promise 
would  only  be  fulfilled  so  far  as  the  priests  themselves  honored 
the  Lor<l  in  their  office. 

The  covenant  made  with  Phinehas  ^  was  not  abrogated  by 
the  temporary  transfer  of  the  high-priest's  office  from  the  line 
of  Eleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar,  since,  as  Keil  reminds  us,  this 
covenant  contemplated  an  "  everlasting  priesthood^'  and  not 
specially  the  high-priesthood ;  and  the  descendants  of  Phinehas 
meantime  retained  the  ordinary  priesthood. 

When  Abiathar,  the  last  liigh-priest  —  Eli  being  the  first  — 
of  the  line  of  Ithamar,  was  deposed  by  Solomon,^  the  office  of 
high-priest  was  restored  to  the  line  of  Phinehas  and  Eleazar.^ 

In  the  case  of  Hezekiah,  the  divine  declaration  was  clearly  a 
conditional  one.  Yet,  as  Vitringa  happily  suggests,  "  the  con- 
dition was  not  expressed,  because  God  would  draw  it  from  him 
as  a  voluntary  act." 

God  satisfied  icith  his  icorks.  Dissatisfied  ivith  them. 

God   saw   every  thinj;  that  he  had  And  it  repented  the  Lord  that  he 

made,  and,  behold  it  was  very  good,  had  made  man  on   tlie  eartli,  and  it 

Gen.  i.  31.  grieved  him  at  his  heart.    Gen.  vi.  6. 

Tliis  case  has  already  been  cxjjlained.'' 

Will  destroy.  Will  vot  dcstroj/. 

And  the  Loiji>  said,  I  will  destroy  Neither  will  I  again  smite  anymore 

man  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  every  thing   living,  as  1   have   done, 

of  the  earth;  hotli  man  and  hcast,  and  Geu.  viii.  iJl. 
the  creei)ing  thing,  and  the  fowls  of  the 
air.    Gen.  vi.  7. 

One  of  these  utterances  was  made  before,  the  other  after, 

the  Flood.     Both  declarations  were  strictly  fulfilled. 

Will  ahhor.  Will  not  abhor. 

And  my  soul  shall  abhor  you.  Lev.  I  will  not  cast  them  away,  neither 
xxvi.  30.  will  1  ablior  them.    Lev.  xxvi.  44. 

The  condition  is  stated  plainly  hi  the  intervening  verse,  the 

'  Num.  xxv.  11-13. 

''  1  Kind's  ii.  27.    See  Biilir  in  Langc,  and  Rawlinson  in  Bible  Commen* 
tar}',  on  this  pa.ssa);c. 
"  1  Chron.  xxiv.  3-C.  '  See  p.  i  of  present  work. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  69 

fortieth.  If  they  should  confess  their  iniquity,  the  Lord's  "  abhor- 
rence" of  them  would  be  changed  into  mercy  toward  them. 
The  whole  context  of  these  passages  is  hyj^othetical. 

Permission  f/ranted.  Permission  withheld. 

And  (iod  camp  unto  Halaam  at  nipht,  And  Ualaam  rose  up  in  the  niorninfr, 

and  said  unto  him  if  tlie  men  come  to  and  saddled  l\is  ass,  and  went  witli  the 

call  thee,  ris(Mip,f(Hrf{ro  with  them;  but  princes  of  Moab.     And  God's  anger  was 

yet  the  word  which  I  shall  say  unto  thee,  kindled  because  he  went.    Num.  xxii. 

that  Shalt  thou  do.     JSum.  xxii.  20.  21,22. 

The  permission  given  to  Balaam  was  conditional ;  "  If  the 
men  come  to  call  thee,"  etc.  Balaam,  in  his  eagerness,  "  loving 
the  wages  of  unrighteousness,"  does  not  appear  to  have  waited 
for  the  men  to  call  him  ;  instead  of  this,  he  volunteered  to  go 
with  them.  Ilengstenberg  ^  observes  that  Balaam  "  immediately 
availed  liimself  of  the  permission  of  God  to  go  with  the  Moab- 
ites,  which  he  could  only  do  with  the  secret  purpose  to  avoid 
the  condition  wliich  had  thereby  been  imposed  upon  him, 
'  The  word  which  I  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  shalt  thou  do.' " 
Again,  "  since  God's  anger  was  directed  against  Balaam's  going 
with  a  definite  intention,  it  involves  no  contracHction,  when 
afterwards  liis  going  was  permitted." 

Keil  thinks  that  God's  anger  was  not  kindled  till  near  the 
close  of  Balaam's  journey,  and  then  by  the  feelings  he  was 
cherishing.  A  "  longing  for  wagas  and  honor  "  caused  him  to 
set  out,  and  "  the  nearer  he  came  to  his  destination,  under  the 
'guidance  of  the  distinguished  Moabitish  ambassadors,  the  more 
was  his  mind  occupied  with  the  honors  and  riches  m  prospect ; 
and  so  completely  did  they  take  possession  of  his  heart,  that 
he  was  in  danger  of  casting  to  the  winds  the  condition  which 
had  been  imposed  upon  him  by  God."  Hence  the  divine  anger 
was  awakened. 

Aben  Ezra  and  Bechayai  ^  say  that  the  Lord  had  already 
manifested  his  will  to  Balaam  that  he  should  not  go  to  Balak, 
but  as  if  imagining  God  to  be  nuitablc,  he  again  inquired  if  he 
might  go,  when  the  Lord,  who  impedes  not  tlie  ways  of  men, 

'  History  of  Balaam  and  Ills  Proplieeics,  pp.  345,  372. 
*  Menassch  ben  Israel's  Coneiliator,  i.  205 


70  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE    BIBLE. 

permitted  it,  —  If,  knowing  my  will,  you  still  choose  to  go,  do 

so.     Hence  his  actual  going  displeased  the  Lord. 

Henry  :  "  As  God  sometimes  denies  the  prayers  of  his  people 

in  love,  so  sometimes  he  grants  the  desires  of  the  wicked  in 

wrath." 

Inaccessibilitj/. 

God  approachable.  Not  accessible. 

God  ix  our  refuse  and  strength,  a  very       Why  standest  thou  afar  off,  O  Lord  ? 
present  heJp  in  trouble.     I's.  xlvi.  1.  v^hji   hidest  thou    titijself  in  times  of 

It  is  good  for  me  to  draw  near  to    trouble?    I's  x.  1. 
God.     IN   Ixxiii.  28.  Verily  thou  a?V  a  God  that  liidestthy- 

Tlie  l.oiu)  is  uij;h  unto  all  thorn  that    self,  O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour.    Isa. 
call  upon  him,  to  all  that  call  upon  liim    xlv  15. 

in  Iriitli.     I's.  cxlv.  18.  Thou    hast   covered    thyself  with  a 

L»iaw  nigh  to  God  and  he  will  draw    cloud,  that  our  prayer  should  not  pass 
nigh  to  you.    Jas.  iv.  8.  through.    Lam.  iii.44. 

Are  ye  come  to  iuipiire  of  me!  Asi  I 
live,  saitU  the  Louu  dod,  1  will  not  be 
inquired  of  by  you.     Kzek.  xx.  3. 

Who  only  hath  immortality,  dwell- 
ing in  the  light  which  no  inan  can 
approach  unto.    1  Tim.  vi.  16. 

Obvionsly,  the  expression  "  draw  near  to  God  "  is  not  to  be 
taken  in  the  literal  sense.  In  relation  to  an  omnipresent  being 
there  can  be,  strictly  speaking,  no  nearness,  no  remoteness. 
God  is  as  near  to  one  as  to  another.  We  "•  draw  nigh  "  to  him, 
in  a  figurative  sense,  by  prayer  and  devout  meditation,  by 
engaguig  in  spiritual  communion  with  him. 

Ps.  X.  1  and  Lam.  iii.  44  express  a  degree  of  impatience  that 
God  does  not  instantly  appear,  that  he  sees  lit  to  leave  his 
people  temporarily  in  alfliction. 

Isa.  xlv.  15,  Delitzsch  renders,  "  Thou  art  a  mysterious  God," 
and  says  the  meaning  is,  "  a  God  who  guides  with  marvellous 
strangeness  the  history  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,,  and  by 
secret  ways,  which  human  eyes  can  never  discern,  conducts  all 
to  a  glorious  issue." 

Ezek.  XX.  3  was  addressed  to  men  who,  while  cherishing 
hypocrisy  and  wickedness  in  their  hearts,  attempted  to  in(]uire 
of  God.     8iu;h  iiHjuircrs  he  ever  sternly  repels. 

1  Tim.  vi.  !(),•'  Dwelling  in  l;u;!it  unapproachable,"  is  a  state- 
ment of  the  unquestionable  triitii,  tliat  no  mortal  can  literally 
approach  God,  endure  the  iiulfabh",  splendor  of  his  ()resence, 
or  fathom  the  niy.slcrivs  of  his  existence. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  71 

No  one  of  these  texts  intimates  that  men  may  not  di-aw  near 
to  God,  in  the  only  possible  way  —  by  penitence  and  prayer ; 
no  one  of  them  denies  that  he  is  accessible  unto  all  that  "  call 
upon  him  in  truth." 

A II  seekers  find.  Som  e  do  not  fin  d. 

If  thou  spek  him,  he  will  be  found  of  Seek  ye  the  Lokd  while  he  may  be 

thee;  but  if  thou  forsake  liim,  ho  will  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  uear. 

cast  thee  oft'for  ever.   1  Chron.  xxviii  9.  Isa   Iv.  6. 

I  said  not  unto  the  seed  of  Jacob.  Seek  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  straight  pate ; 

ye  me  in  vain.     Isa.  xlv.  19.  for  inanv.  1  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to 

1  am  sought  of //(em //ia^  asked  not/or  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.    Luke 

?»e,-  1  am  found  of //wot //(a<  sought  me  xiii.  24. 

not.    J.sa.  Ixv.  1.  Ye  sliall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  lind 

He  that  seeketh  tindeth,  and  to  him  me:  and  where  I  am,  thither  ye  cannot 

that  kuocketh  it  shall  be  opened.    JIatt.  come.    Johnvii.  84. 
vii.  8. 

Andrew  Fuller  ^  remarks  :  "  Seeking,  in  Matthew,  refers  to  the 
application  for  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  present  life ; 
but  in  Luke,  it  denotes  that  anxiety  which  the  workers  of 
miquity  will  discover  to  be  admitted  into  heaven  at  the  last 

day Every  one  that  seeketh  mercy  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 

while  the  door  is  open  succeeds ;  but  he  that  seeketh  it  not  till 
the  door  is  shut  will  not  succeed." 

The  text  from  John  was  addi-essed  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
who  Avould  not  seek  Christ,  at  the  right  time,  nor  with  the 
right  spirit.  Hence,  their  future  seeking  would  be  unavailing. 
Alford :  "  My  bodily  presence  will  be  withdrawn  from  you ;  I 
shall  be  personally  m  a  place  inaccessible  to  you." 

These  texts  contain    nothing  whatever  to  debar  those  v/ho 

seek  the  Saviour  at  the  proper  time,  and  in  the  right  way. 

Early  seekers  successful.  Some  fail  to  find. 

Those  that  seek  me  early  shall  find  They  shall  seek  me  early,  but  they 
me.    I'rov.  viii.  17.  shall  not  lind  me.    I'rov.i.  28. 

These  two  texts,  as  the  connection  evinces,  point  to  entirely 
different  classes  of  persons.  The  text  from  Prov.  viii.  is  taken 
by  many  commentators  as  applicable  to  the  young  who  seek 
God.  Ziickler-  says  the  word  here  rendered  "seek  early," 
coming  from  a  noun  denoting  the  morning  dawn,  "  signifies  to 
seek  sometliing  while  it  is  yet  early,  in  the  obscurity  of  the 
morning  twilight,  and  so  illustiates  eager,  ddigent  seeking."    In 

*  Works,  i.  675.  -  In  Liuiy;c  on  I'rov.  i.  2S. 


72  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

this  opinion,  many  critics  substantially  concur.^  On  this  hypoth- 
esis, the  sense  is,  "  Those  who  seek  me  in  youth  shall  find  me." 
The  other  text,  in  the  first  chapter,  rendered  by  Stuart, 
"  They  shall  earnestly  seek  me,  but  they  shall  not  find  me," 
contemplates  obstinate  and  hardened  transgressors.  They  are 
described  ^  as  "•  fools  "  and  "  scorncrs,"  are  said  to  have  hated 
knowledge,  to  have  not  chosen  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  to  have 
despised  all  his  reproof.  The  two  texts  may,  therefore,  be 
paraplu-ased  thus  :  "  Those  who  early  and  earnestly  seek,  shall 
find  me ;  but  impenitent  rebels  who,  in  the  hour  and  from  the 
fear  of  retribution,  earnestly  seek,  shall  not  find  me."  Properly 
explained,  there  is  not  the  slightest  collision  between  the  two 
texts. 

rnscrufabiliff/. 

God's  attributes  revealed.  They  are  unsearchable. 

The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God ;  Canst  thou  by  searchin;;;  find  out  God? 
and  the  lirtnameut  sheweth  his  handy  canst  thou  lind  out  the  AJmighty  uuto 
work.    I's.  xix.  1.  perfection?    Job.  xi.  7. 

For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  His  greatness  ts  unsearchable.  Ps. 
the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly     c.xlv   3. 

seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  Great  is  our  Lord,  and  of  great 
that  are  made;  ereii  his  eternal  power  power:  his  understanding  is  inlinite. 
and  Godhead ;  so  that  they  are  without    I's.  cxlvii.  5. 

excuse.    Itom.  i.  20.  T/iei-e  is  no  searching  of  his  under- 

standing.   Isa.  xl.  28. 

O  the  depth  of  tlie  riches  both  of  the 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God !  how 
un.searchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
Lis  ways  past  liuding  out.    Kom.  xi.  33. 

Neither  of  the  affirmative  texts  intimates  that  God  can  be 
weighed  or  measured,  or  the  depths  of  Deity  explored  by 
mortals. 

Ps.  xix.  1  asserts  that  the  heavens  above  us,  the  "  upper 
deep,"  adorned  with  sun  and  moon  and  stars, 

"  Forever  sin^iiiff,  as  they  shine, 
'  The  hand  that  made  us  is  divine,' " 

are  a  proof  and  illustration  of  the  wisdom,  power,  and  benevo- 
lence of  the  Creator.    They  thus  declare  his  glory. 

Rom.  i.  20    merely  implies  that  the  invisible   attributes  of 

'  So  15.  Davidson,  Nojes,  Parkhurst,  Umbreit,  Opitius,  Stockius,  Moore, 
and  Frcy. 
*  See  verses  -.'i,  I'J,  ami  30. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


73 


Ills  wonders  recounted. 

That  1  may  publish  with  the  voice  of 
thanksgiving,  and  tell  of  ail  thy  won- 
drous works.    Vs.  XX vi.  7 

Hitherto  have  I  declared  thy  won- 
drous works.     I's   Ixxi.  17. 

I  Ijave  put  my  trust  in  the  Lord  God, 
that  I  may  declare  all  thy  works.  I's. 
LxxiU.  28. 


God,  particularly  liis  eternal  power  and  divinity,  are  clearly 
revealed  in  his  works.  Aristotle  has  a  sti'ikingly  similar  obser- 
vation, "  God,  who  is  invisible  to  every  mortal  being,  is  seen  by 
his  works." 

Stuart :  "  God's  invisible  attributes,  at  least  some  of  them, 
are  made  as  it  were  visible,  i.e.  are  made  the  object  of  clear 
and  distinct  apprehension,  by  reason  of  the  natural  creation." 

Innumerable. 

Which  doeth  great  things  pa-st  find- 
ing out;  yea,  and  wonders  without 
number.     Job.  ix.  10. 

Many,  O  L.ORD  my  God,  aiv  thy  won- 
derful worksiohich  thou  hast  dune,  and 
thy  thoughts  which  are  to  us-^Tird: 
they  cannot  be  reckoned  up  in  order 
unto  thee :  if  1  would  declare  and  speak 
p/  flicm,  they  are  more  than  can  be 
numbered.    Vs.  xl.  5. 

These  affirmative  passages  are  not  to  be  rigidly  interpreted. 
It  is  idle  to  explain  the  language  of  emotion  according  to  a 
strict  literalism.  David  neither  asserts  nor  implies  liis  ability 
to  enumerate  and  set  forth  all,  in  the  absolute  sense,  of  God's 
wonderful  works.  His  meaning  is  :  To  the  extent  of  my  ability 
I  declare  thy  marvellous  deeds.  None  of  the  foregoing  texts 
impinge  upon  the  unsearchableness  of  God,  as  to  his  essence 
and  mode  of  existence. 

Invisibility. 

God  seen  many  times.  Not  seen  by  man. 

And  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the  And  he  said  thou  canst  not  see  my 

place  I'cniel :  fori  have  seen  God  face  face;   for  there  shall    no  man  see  me, 

to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved.    Gen.  and  live.    Kx   xxxiii.  20. 

xxxii.  30  Take  ye  therefore   good  hoed  unto 

Then  went  up  Moses  and  Aaron,  Na-  yourselves;  for  ye  saw  no  manner  of 

dab   and    Abihu,    and   seventy  of  the  similitude  on  the   day  that  the  Loiui 

elders  of  Israel:  and  thi>y  saw  the  God  spake  unto   you   in   lloreb,  out  of  the 

of  Israel.     Kx.  xxiv.  9,  10.  midst  of  the  lire.     Deut.  iv.  15. 

And  the  Loiti)  spake  unto  Moses  face  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time, 

to  face,  as  a  man  speakfth   unto  his  John  i.  18. 

friend.  .  .  .  And  I  will  take  away  mine  Ye  liave  neither  heard  his  voice  iit 

liand.  and  thou  shalt  see  my  back  parts:  any  time,  nor  seen   his  shape.     John 

but  my  face  shall  not  be  seen.    Ex.  v.  37. 

xxxiii    11.23.  The  King  eternal,  immortal,  invis- 

And  Manoah  said  unto  his  wife.  We  ible.     1  Tim.  i.  17.- 
shall  surely  die.  because  we  have  seen 


God.     Judg.  xiii.  22. 

In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died,  1 
saw  also  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne, 
high  and  llf'tL'd  up,  and  his  train  tilled 
the  tiinple.     Isa.  vi.  1. 

1  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  cast 
down,  and  the  Ancient  of  days  did  sit, 


Whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can 
see.     1  Tim.  vi.  10 


74  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

God  seen  many  times.  Not  seen  by  man. 

whose  prarmcnt  was  white  as  snow,  and 
the  hair  of  liis  lipad  like  the  pure  wool : 
his  throne  was  like  the  liery  tlame,  and 
his  wheels  as  burning  tire.    Dan.  vii.  9. 

Some  of  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  — 
those  of  Isaiali  and  Daniel,  for  example,  —  were  visions,  in 
which  men  "  saw  "  the  Deity,  not  with  the  physical  eye,  but 
with  that  of  the  soul.  In  most  of  the  instances,  however,  some- 
thing more  real  and  objective  seems  to  be  intended.  In  some 
cases,  it  is  said  merely  that  "  God "  was  seen ;  in  others,  an 
"  angel "  appears,  who  is  identified,  during  the  process  of  the 
narrative,  with  Jehovah. 

It  is  beyond  question  that  God  —  as  a  spirit  —  as  he  is  in 
himself,  —  is  never  visible  to  men.  In  what  sense,  then,  may 
he  be  said  to  have  been  ''  seen  "  ? 

1.  He  might  assume  temporarily,  and  for  wise  purposes, 
some  visible  form  in  which  to  manifest  himself  to  his  creatures. 
Cases  of  this  kind  arc  termed  '"  theophanies,"  in  which,  as 
Ilengsteuberg '  says,  God  appears  "  under  a  light  vesture  of 
corporeity,  in  a  transiently-assumed  human  form."  This  seems 
in  some  instances  the  best  solution. 

2.  He  might  be  seen,  as  we  may  say,  by  proxy,  —  hi  his 
accredited  representative.  This  explanation  is  a  very  ancient 
one.  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  the  narratives  of  divine 
appearances,  it  is  not  God  himself  —  Jehovah  —  who  is  men- 
tioned as  the  Person  appearing,  even  where  this  is  the  case  in 
the  Jewish  text,  but  always  an  Angel.^  So,  in  the  Chaldeo 
Targum,  Jacob's  language  stands,  "  I  have  seen  the  Angel  of 
God  face  to  face." 

It  is  a  striking  fact  that,  in  many  instances,  this  "  representa- 
tive Angel "  claims  for  himself  divine  honors  and  purposes,  and 
accepts  divine  worsliip.'  Respecting  the  nature  and  rank  of 
this  celestial  messenger,  opinion  is  divided.'* 

'  OciiuincMicss  of  Pent.  11.  ;J70.    =>  Blcck,  Introdiution  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  393. 
•'  .Sec  (jciiesis  xviil.  10,  11;  xxii.  12;  xxxi.  11,  1."!;  Acts  vii.  80, o2. 
*  l>ani;c  on  Genesis,  \\yi.  ■WG-a91. 


DOCTRINAL    DISCREPANCIES.  75 

Augustine,  Jerome,  the  Romish  theologians,  the  Sochi ians, 
Ilofmann,  Tholuck,  Delitzscli,  Kurtz,  and  others,  hold  that  he 
was  a  "  created  angel "  who  personated  Jehovah,  acted  as  his 
proxy  or  nuncius.  We  know  that  it  is  not  uncommon  for  a 
monarch  to  depute  some  nobleman  to  act  as  his  proxy  or  repre- 
sentative for  the  time  being  with  all  needful  powers  and 
privileges. 

The  early  church,  the  old  Protestant  theologians,  Bush, 
Hengstenberg,  Keil,  Hiivernick,  Lange,  Wordsworth,  with 
others,  hold  that  this  Angel  was  the  Logos,  the  second  Person 
in  the  Trinity,  who  temporarily  assumed  the  human  form,  and 
thus  "  foreshadowed  the  incarnation."  In  this  manner  God 
was  seen  in  his  Son.  On  any  one  of  these  hypotheses,  there 
is  no  difficulty,  for  God  was  seen,  and  yet  not  seen. 

In  his  infinite  and  incomprehensible  essence,  as  we  have  just 
said,  Jehovah  is  seen  by  no  mortal ;  but  in  a  theophany,  in  his 
representative  Angel,  in  the  Logos  who  is  "  the  brightness  of 
his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  liis  person,"  the  "  Iving 
eternal,  immortal,  invisible"  has  often  been  seen. 

Little  need  be  said  concerning  the  specific  cases  above  men- 
tioned. The  Lord  spake  with  his  servant  Moses  "  face  to  face," 
that  is,  familiarly.  Two  men  may  speak  face  to  face,  in  dark- 
ness, neither  seeing  the  other. 

As  to  Ex.  xxxiu.  23,  Keil  says :  "  As  the  inward  nature  of 
man  manifests  itself  in  his  face,  and  the  sight  of  his  back  gives 
only  an  imperfect  and  outward  view  of  him,  so  Moses  saw  only 
the  back,  and  not  the  face  of  Jehovah." 

Andrew  Fuller:^  "The  difference  here  seems  to  arise  from 
the  phrase  "  face  of  God."  In  the  one  case,  it  is  expressive  of 
great  familiarity,  compared  with  former  visions  and  manifesta- 
tions of  the  divine  glory  ;  in  the  other,  of  a  fulness  of  Inowlcdge 
of  this  glory,  which  is  incompatible  with  our  mortal  state,  if  not 
with  our  capacity  as  creatures. 

Miu-phy :  "  My  face  is  my  direct,  immediate,  intrinsic,  self 

*  Works,  i.  674  (ediiion  in  3  vols.) 


70  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

My  bach  is  my  averted,  mediate,  extrinsic  self,  visible  to  man 
in  my  works,  my  word,  and  my  personal  manifestations  to  my 
people." 

Bush :  "  Nothing  could  be  more  expressive  than  the  mode 
adopted  to  convey  the  intimation,  that  while  a  lower  degree  of 
disclosure  could  be  made  to  him,  a  hifjher  could  not."  An  im- 
portant truth  is  couched  in  highly  symbolical  language. 

As  to  the  apparent  collision  between  John  v.  37  and  those 
])assages  which  represent  the  voice  of  God  as  heard  at  times 
by  men,'  the  citation  from  Jolm  may  be  taken  as  assertuig  that 
no  mortal  ever  saw  the  form  or  heard  the  voice  which  is  peculiar 
to  God.  Or,  as  Alford  suggests,  the  language  may  have  been 
intended  to  apply  to  those  persons  then  jjresent,  "  Ye  have  not 
heard  his  voice,  a.s  your  fathers  did  at  Sinai ;  nor  have  ye  seen 
his  visional  appearance,  as  did  the  prophets." 

On  either  interpretation  there  is  no  difRculty. 

SimiUtii'Je  of  God  seen.  No  similitude  visible. 

The  gimilitude  of  the  Lord  shall  he  And  the  Louu  spake  unto  you  out  of 
behold.    2Sura.  xii.  8.  the  midst  of  the  fire:  ye  heard  the  voice 

of  the  words,  but  saw  no  similitude. 
Deut.  iv.  12. 

The  first  text  refers  to  Moses,  the  second  to  the  people  in 
general.  He  saw  certain  manifestations  of  God  which  they 
were  not  permitted  to  see. 

Keil  thinks  that  the  similitude  which  Moses  saw  was  simply 
a  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  God  answering  to  Moses's  own 
intuition  and  perceptive  faculty,  and  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
form  of  God  wliicli  was  an  adequate  representation  of  the  divine 
nature. 

Holiness. 
God  the  Author  of  evil.  Xot  the  Author  of  evil. 

I  form  the  llpht,  and  create  darkness:        A  Ood  of  truth  and  without  iniquity, 
J  mako   jiciice.  and  create  evil:    I   the    just  and  ri^lit /.<  lie.     Deut.  xxxii.  4. 
I.oiii)  do  all  t'lcsc  thini/s.  I^a.  xlv.  7.  For   thou   art  not  a  (ind  that   hath 

Thus  saith  tlie  I.OKi);  l?<'h(ild,  1  frame     pleasure   in  wickedness:    neither  shall 
<vil  afrainst  you,  and  devL-ie  a  device    evil  dwell  with  theo.     I's.  v   4 
apainst  you.     .ler.  xviil.  11.  Fori  know  the  tliotijrlits  that  I  think 

Out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  Hi-rh  toward  you.  saith  tlie  Loitl),  thoufrhts 
proceedtiii  not  evil  and  good!"  Lain,  of  peace,  and  not  of  evil.  Jer.  xxix. 
lii.  38.  11. 

'  See  Gen.  ill.  8;  Ex.  xix.  19;  Deut.  v.  2G;  Job  xxxviii.  1. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  77 

God  the  Author  of  evil.  Not  the  Author  of  evil 

Wherefore  I  gave  them  also  statutes        For  God  is  not  ^/(e«M//iorof  confusion, 

that  were    not   good,  and   judgments    but  of  peace.  1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 

wliereby  they  sliould  not  live.    Kzelc. 

XX.  25. 
.>^hall  there  be  evil  in  a  city,  and  the 

Lord  hath  not  done  i<.'    .iVmos  iii.  6. 

"  Evil,"  mentioned  in  the  first,  second,  tbird,  and  fifth  texts, 
means  natural,  and  not  moral  evil,  or  sin.  Henderson  says, 
"  affliction,  adversity  " ;  Calvin,  "  afiiictions,  wars,  and  other 
adverse  occurrences." 

When  Pompeii  is  buried  by  the  volcano,  Jerusalem  destroyed 
in  war,  London  depopulated  by  the  plague,  Lisbon  overthrown 
by  an  earthquake,  Chicago  devastated  by  fii'e ;  it  is  God  who 
sends  these  "  evils  "  or  calamities. 

In  Psalm  v.  4,  "  evil,"  as  the  parallelism  shows,  is  iniquity  ; 
in  Jer.  xxix.  11,  it  means  punitive  displeasure. 

As  to  Ezek.  xx.  25,  the  "statutes"  which  were  "not  good" 
are  variously  referred. 

Calvin,  Vitringa,  and  Havernick  say,  the  customs  and  practices, 
the  idolatrous  and  corrupting  rites,  of  heathenism,  to  which  God 
gave  over  the  Jews  as  a  punishment  for  their  ungodly  disposition.^ 

Fairbairn :  "  The  polluted  customs  and  observances  of  heath- 
enism." Wordsworth  :  "  These  evil  practices  are  called  '  statutes ' 
and  'judgments,'  in  verse  18,  like  the  'statutes  of  Omri'  in 
]\Iicah  vi.  1 G."  ^  Umbreit  and  Kurtz  say,  "  the  liturgical  laws 
which  Jehovah  prescribed,  but  which  the  peojile  abused  for 
heathen  purposes." 

We  know  that  abused  blessings  may  prove  the  heaviest 
curses.  May  not  the  meaning  be  that  these  "  statutes,"  though 
good  in  their  original  design  and  adaptation,  proved  "  not 
good"  in  their  result,  through  the  disobedience  of  those  to 
whom  they  were  addressed  ?  Ase  not  Paul's  words,  "  And  the 
commandment  which  was  ordained  to  life,  I  found  to  be  unto 
death,"  ^  explanatory  of  the  text  under  consideration  ? 

*  Compare  Ps.lxxxi.  1'2;  Rom.  i.  24,  S.'i;  2  Thess.  ii.  11. 
'  Compare  "  statutes  of  the  licathen,"  2  Kiuys  xvii.  8. 

*  Rom.  vii.  10. 

7* 


78  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Wines  ^  takes  the  meaniBg  to  be,  laws  not  absolutely  the  best, 
but  relatively  so.  This  view  of  the  meaning  and  force  of  the 
text  is  confirmed  by  the  words  of  our  Saviour.  He  has  told  us 
that  Moses  tolerated  divorce  among  the  Jews,  because  of  the 
hardness  of  their  hearts.  If  the  Jews  of  Moses's  time  had  been 
less  hardhearted,  several  of  his  statutes  would  have  been  differ- 
ent. These  statutes  were  intended  to  meet  special  exigencies, 
but  were  not  designed  for  universal  application. 

Solon,  being  asked  whether  he  had  furnished  the  best  laws 
for  the  peojile  of  Athens,  replied,  "  I  have  given  them  the  best 
that  they  were  able  to  bear." 

"  When  divine  wisdom,"  observes  Montesquieu,^  "  said  to  tho 
Jews,  '  I  have  given  you  precepts  which  are  not  good,'  this 
signifies  that  they  had  only  a  relative  goodness ;  and  this  is  the 
sponge  which  wipes  out  all  the  difficulties  which  are  to  be  found 
in  the  law  of  Moses." 

Wliichever  interpretation  may  be  adopted,  none  of  the  above 
texts,  nor  any  others  when  properly  explained,  sanction  the 
revolting  proposition  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin. 

God  jealous.  Free  from  jealousy. 

I  the  LoKD  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God.  The  Lord   is   pracious,  and  full  of 

Ex.  XX.  5.  compassion  ;  slow  to  anger,  and  of  groat 

The  anger  of  the  Lord  and  his  joal-  mercy     The  Lord  is  good  to  all :  and 

ousy  shall  smoke   against    that   man.  his  tender  mercies    are    over  all   his 

Deut.  xxix.  20.  works.     Ps.  cxlv.  8.  9. 

For tliey  provoked  him  to  anger  with  For  jealousy  is  the  rage  of  a  man: 

their  high  places,  and  moved  him  to  tlierefore  he  will  not  spare  in  the  day  of 

jealousy  with  their  graven  images.   I's.  vengeance.    I'rov.  vi.  34. 

Ixxviii.  58.  Wrath  is  cruel,  and  anger  t.s  outra- 

Therefore  thus  saith  tho  Lord  (Jod;  geous;  but  who  is  able  to  stand  before 

Surely  in  the  lire  of  my  joalou.sy  have  jealousy.'   I'rov.  xxvii.  4 

I   spoken   against  the   residue  of  the  Jealousy  is  criu'l  as  the  grave:  the 

heathen.  Kzek.  x.xxvi.  5.  coals  thereof  are  coals  of  lire,  which 

God  (.f  jealous,  and  the  Lord  reveng-  hatha,  most  vehement  flame.     Cantic. 

cth.  iNahurni.  2.  viii.  6. 

The  words  "  jealous "  and  "  jealousy "  are  each  used  in  a 
good  and  a  bad  sense.*     Applied  to  God,  they  denote  that  he 

*  Commentary  on  Laws  of  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  119. 
=  Spirit  of  Laws,  B.  19,  c.  21. 

'  Zoeklcr  says  the  original  word  denotes  here,  not  "envy,"  but  plainly 
"jealou'^y." 

*  In  the  Hebrew,  _;e«/oM.'!»/,  envy,  zeal,  and  anger  may  be  expressed  by  a 
single  term,  nXJp  ;  Puerat  and  (Jeseuiua. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  79 

is  intensely  solicitous  for  his  own  character  and  honor,  that  he 
does  not  tolerate  rivalry  of  any  kind.  An  infinitely  wise  and 
holy  Monarch  cannot  be  mdifferent  as  to  the  loyalty  of  his 
subjects. 

Keil  regards  the  terms  as  implying  that  God  "will  not  transfer 
to  another  the  honor  that  is  due  to  himself,  nor  tolerate  the  worship 
of  any  other  god  " ;  and  Bush,  as  denoting  "  a  peculiar  sensi- 
tiveness  to  everything  that  threatens  to  trench  upon  the  honor, 
reverence,  and  esteem  that  he  knows  to  be  due  to  himself.  Tlie 
term  will  appear  still  more  significant  if  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that  idolatry  m  the  Scriptures  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  spiritual 
adultery,  and  as  '  jealousy  is  the  rage  of  man,'  so  notriing  can 
more  fitly  express  the  divine  indignation  against  this  sin  than  the 
term  in  question."  According  to  Newman,^  the  phraseology 
brings  to  view  "  the  great  principle  essential  to  all  acceptance 
with  Jehovah  their  God ;  namely  to  put  away  the  worsliip  of 
all  other  gods.  This  is  constantly  denoted  by  the  phrase  that 
'  Jehovah  is  a  yea/o?<s  God;'  and  out  of  it  arose  the  perpetual 
metaphor  of  the  prophet  in  which  the  relation  of  God  to  his 
people  is  compared  to  a  marriage ;  the  daughter  of  Israel  being 
his  bride  or  wife,  and  he  a  jealous  husband.  Thus  also,  every 
false  god  is  a  paramour,  and  the  worship  of  them  is  adultery 
or  fornication." 

Hence,  even  in  the  estimation  of  this  sceptical  author,  these 
expressions  are  not  derogatory  to  the  holiness  of  God. 

God  tempts  men.  Does  not  tempt  them. 

And  it  came  to  pass  aftor  these  I>et  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted, 
things,  tliat  Ciod  did  tempt  Abraliam.  I  am  tempted  of  God:  tor  (jod  cannot 
Gen.  xxii.  1.  be  tempted  witli  evil,  neitlier  tempt*'tli 

And  ajrain  the  anger  of  the  Loud    he  any  man.    James  i.  13. 
was    kindled    against    Israel,   and    he 
moved  David  against  them  to  say,  (Jo, 
nnniber    Jsrael    and   Judah.     2  Sam. 
xxiv.  1. 

And  lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but 
deliver  us  from  evil.    Matt.  vi.  13. 

Tlie  Hebrew  word  "  iiissiih,"  tempt,  in  the  first  text,  moans  as 
Geseuius  says,  "  to  try,  to  prove  any  one,  to  put  him  to  the  test." 

'  History  of  Hebrew  Monarchy,  p.  2G. 


80  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

It  is  used  in  reference  to  David's  trying  Saul's  armor,'  and  the 
queen  of  Sheba's  testing  the  wisdom  of  Solomon."  The  mean- 
ing therefore  is,  as  m  the  old  Genevan  version,  "  God  did 
prove  Abraham." 

Bush :  "  God  may  consistently,  with  all  his  perfections,  by  his 
providence,  bring  his  creatures  into  cncmnstances  of  special 
probation,  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  information,  but 
in  order  to  manifest  to  themselves  and  to  others  the  prevailing 
dispositions  of  their  hearts."  God  put  Abraham  to  the  proof 
before  angels  and  men,  that  his  faith  and  obedience  might  be 
made  manifest  for  an  example  to  all  coming  generations. 

As  to  the  second  text,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  God  ordered 
or  allowed  such  influences  to  affect  the  mind  of  David  as  should 
lead  to  a  specific  wrong  act  resultmg  in  needful  chastisement 
Yet  the  ultimate  end  in  view  was  the  welfare  of  David  and  Ins 
people. 

It  should  be  added  that,  according  to  Lord  Arthur  Hervey,' 
the  passage  should  read,  ^'■For  one  moved  David  against  them." 
Tliis  translation  would  seem  to  change  the  whole  aspect  of  the 
passage,  and  to  make  the  munbering  of  the  people  the  cause, 
rather  than  the  result,  of  the  divine  displeasure. 

Keil :  ■*  "  The  instigation  consists  in  the  fact  that  God  impels 
sinners  to  manifest  the  wickedness  of  their  hearts  in  deeds,  or 
furnishes  the  opportunity  and  the  occasion  for  the  unfolding 
and  practical  manifestation  of  the  evil  desires  of  the  heart,  that 
the  sinner  may  eitlier  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  his  more 
evil  ways  and  also  to  repentance,  through  the  evil  deed  and  its 
consequences ;  or,  if  the  heart  should  be  hardened  still  more  by 
the  evil  deed,  that  it  may  become  ripe  for  the  judgment  of  death. 
Tlie  instigation  of  a  sinner  to  evil  is  simply  one  peculiar  way  in 
which  God,  as  a  general  rule,  punishes  sins  through  siniuirs  ;  for 
God  only  instigates  to  evil  actions  such  as  have  drawn  down 
the  wrath  of  God  upon  themselves  in  consequence  of  their  sin." 

'  1  Sam.  xvii.  39.  - 1  Kinj,'s  x.  1.  ^  In  Bible  Commentary. 

*  Commentary  on  1  Sam.  xxvi.  19 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  81 

"  Lead  us  not  into  temptation,"  either  "  Do  not  suffer  us  to 
be  tempted  to  sin  ;  or,  if  "  temptation  "  here  means  trial,  afflic- 
tion, "  Do  not  afilict  or  try  us."  Such,  in  substance  is  Mr. 
Barnes's  view.  God  "  tempts,"  tests,  or  tries  men,  but  always 
for  wise  reasons,  and  with  a  good  motive ;  he  never  phxces 
inducements  before  men  merely  in  order  to  lead  them  into  sin. 
His  ultimate  object  is  always  good. 

God,  a  respecter  of  persons.  Does  not  respect  them. 

And  tlie  Lord  had  respect  unto  Abel  A  srreat  God.  a  mifrhty,  and  a  terrible, 

and  to  his  otrorin^.    But  unto  Cain  and  which  regardeih  not  per.sons,  nor tuketh 

to  liis  oU'eriiig  he  had  not  respect.  Gen.  reward.     Deut.  x   17. 

iv.  4,  5.  There  is  no  iniquity  with  the  Lord 

And  God  looked  upon  the  children  of  our  God,  nor  respect  of  persons,  nor 

Israel,  and  God  had  respect  unto  Ihem.  taking  of  gifts.    2Chron.  xix.  7. 

Kx.  ii.  25.  Then   I'eter  opened  his  mouth,  and 

For  I  will  have  respect  unto  you,  and  said.  Of  a  truth  1  perceive  tliat  God  is 

make  you  fruitful,  and  multiply  you,  no  respecter  of  persons.    Acts  x.  34. 

and  establish  my  covenant  with  you.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  i)ersons 

Lev.  xxvi.  9.  with  God    Worn   ii.  11. 

And  the   Lord  was    gracious  unto  God  accepteth  no  man's  person.  Gal. 

them,  and   had   compassion   on   them,  ii.  6. 

and  had  respect  unto  them.    2  Kings  Your  Master  also  is  in  heaven  ;  neither 

xiii.  2.3.  is  there  respect  of  persons  with  him. 

Though  the  Lord  he  high,  yet  hath  Eph.  vi.  9. 

he  resjject  unto  the  lowly  :  but  the  proud  The  Father,  who  without  respect  of 

he  knoweth  afar  off.   I's.  cxxxviii.  6.  persons   judgeth    according  to    every 

man's  work.  1  Pet.  i.  17. 

The  first  series  of  texts  implies  a  righteous  and  benevolent 
"  respect,"  based  upon  a  proper  discrimination  as  to  character ; 
the  second  series  denotes  a  "respect"  which  is  partial,  arising 
out  of  selfish  and  unworthy  considerations. 

The  Hebrew  expression,  "  niisii  iiiinim,"  in  Deut.  x.  17  and 
2  Chron.  xix.  7,  is  to  be  taken,  according  to  Gesenius,  "  in  a 
bad  sense,  to  be  partial,  as  a  judge  unjustly  partial  or  corrupted 
by  bribes."  Fuerst  gives,  among  other  definitions,  "  to  take  the 
side  of  one  with  partiality."  In  both  of  the  above  texts,  the 
connection  makes  it  clear  that  this  is  the  correct  interpretation. 
The  corresponding  Greek  term  "  prosopolepsia,"  expressing  con- 
cretely the  same  idea,'  and  occurring  in  some  modification  iu  all 
but  one  of  the  New  Testament  citations,  conveys  an  unfavorable 
meaning,  uniformly  implying  pnrtiaUdj. 

There  is  therefore  no  collision  l)etweeu  the  two  scries  of 

•  See  TIackctt  on  Acts  x.  34. 


82  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

texts,   inasmuch   as   they  refer   to  widely  diflferent   kinds   of 

"  respect." 

God,  an  angrii  being.  Not  angry. 

God  is  angry  ivith  the  wicked  every  The  Loud  God,  merciful  and  Rracious, 

day.    I's.  viii  11.  loiigsuHcrinjr.  and  abundant  in  good- 
Come,  my  people,  enter  thou  into  thy  ness  and  trutli,  keeping  mercy  tor  thou- 

chamber.-i,  "and  shut  thy  doors  about  sands.     Ex  xxxiv.  6.  7. 

thee :  hide  thyself  as  it  were  for  a  little  A  (iod  ready  to  pardon,  gracious  and 

moment,  until  the  iudiguatiou  be  over-  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great 

past.    Isa.  xxvi.  20.  kindness.    Neh.  ix.  17. 

The  tierce  anger  of  the  Lord  is  not  (jreat     are  thy    tender    mercies,  O 

turned  back  from  us.     Jer.  iv.  8.  Lokd.     I's.  cxix.  156. 

The  Loud  revengeth,  and  is  furious;  t  ury  is  not  in  me.    Isa.  xxvii.  4. 

the  Loud  will  take  vengeance  on  his 

adversaries,  and  he  reserveth  wrath  far 

his  enemies.    Nah.  i.  2. 

The  "  anger  "  ascribed  to  God  in  the  scriptures  is,  as  Eashi 
says,  "  the  displeasure  and  disgust "  which  he  experiences  in 
view  of  human  conduct.  Let  any  one  seriously  reflect  as  to 
what  must  be  the  feelings  of  an  injimtely  wise  and  holy  Being 
in  regard  to  sin,  and  he  can  scarcely  be  at  a  loss  to  appreciate 
the  meaning  of  the  term,  "  anger  of  God."  Prof.  Tayler 
Lewis  *  has  the  following  remarks  :  "  Depart  in  the  least  from 
the  idea  of  indifferentisra,  and  we  have  no  limit  but  infinity. 
God  either  cares  nothing  about  what  we  call  good  and  evU ; 
or  as  the  heaven  of  heavens  is  high  above  the  earth,  so  far  do 
his  love  for  the  good  and  hjs  hatred  of  evil  exceed  in  their 
intensity  any  corresponding  human  affection."  The  Being 
who  loves  the  good  with  infinite  intensity  must  hate  evil  with 
the  same  intensity.  So  far  from  any  incompatibility  between 
tins  love  and  this  hate,  they  are  the  counterparts  of  each  other 
—  opposite  jioles  of  the  same  moral  emotion. 

"  A  religion  over  whose  portal  is  inscribed  in  letters  of  flame, 
'  I  AM  Holy,'  can  without  risk  represent  God  as  angry,  jealous, 
mourning,  repenting.  Scrupulosity,  under  sucH  circumstances, 
is  the  sign  of  an  evil  conscience."'' 

God,  susceptible  of  temptation.  Cannot  be  tempted. 

Ye  shall  not  tempt  the  Lokd  your       God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil. 
God,  as  ye  temjited  him  in  Massah.    Jas.  i.  13. 
Deut.  vi.  10. 

They  that  tempt  God  are  even  deliv- 
ered.   Mai.  iii.  16. 

'  In  Lansc  on  Genesis,  p.  288. 

-  Ilcn^stciilier^',  Genuineness  of  IVnt.  11.  327. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  83 

God,  susceptible  of  temptation.  Cannot  be  tempted. 

Thou  Shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy 
God.     Matt.  iv.  7. 

Now  therefore  why  tempt  ye  God,  to 
put  a  yoke  upon  the  ueck  of  the  disci- 
ples.   Acts  XV.  10. 

Men  are  said,  in  the  Bible,  to  "tempt"  God,  when  they 
distrust  his  faithfulness ;  when  they  brave  his  displeasure ; 
when,  challenging  him  to  work  miracles  in  their  behalf,  they 
presumptuously  expose  themselves  to  peril ;  also,  "  by  putting 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  his  evidently  determined  course."  ^ 

The  quotation  from  James,  as  it  stands  in  our  version,  simply 
asserts  that  there  is  nothing  m  God  which  responds  to  the 
solicitations  and  blandishments  of  evil ;  it  presents  no  attractions 
to  him.     He  is  not  allured  by  it  in  the  slightest  degree. 

Alford,  DeWette,  and  Huther,  however,  render,  in  substance, 
"  God  is  unversed  in  things  evil."  With  either  rendering  there 
is  no  discrepancy.^ 

Justice. 

God  is  just.  Unjust. 

That  be  far  from  thee  to  do  after  this  For  whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall  be 

manner,  to  slay  thi'  righteous  with  the  given,  and  he  shall  have  more  abun- 

wickcd:  and  that  the  righteous  should  dnnce:   but  whosoever  hath  not,  from 

be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee:  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  he 

shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  hath.    Matt.  xiii.  12. 

right?    tien.  xviii.  25.  {Far  the.  chi/dren  being  not  yet  born, 

All  his  ways  arc  judgment,  a  God  of  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil, 

truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to 

right  is  he      Deut  xxxii.  4.  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but 

The  Lord  is  upright:  fie  is  my  rock,  of  him  that  calleth  :)    It  was  said  unto 

and  there  is  no  unrighteousness  in  him.  her,  The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 

I's.  xcii.  15.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved, 

IJear  now,  O  house  of  Israel :  Is  not  but  Esau  havel  hated,    llom.  ix.  11-13. 
my  way  equal?    are  not  your  ways  un- 
equal?   Ezek.  xviii.  25. 

As  to  Matt.  xiii.  1 2,  Barnes  says :  "  This  is  a  proverbial 
mode  of  speaking.  It  means  that  a  man  who  improves  what 
light,  grace,  and  opportunities  he  has  shall  have  tlicm  increased. 
From  him  tliat  improves  them  not,  it  is  proper  that  they  should 
be  taken  away." 

Alford:  "  He  who  /lath  —  he  who  not  only  hears  with  the 
ear,  but  understands  with  tlie  heart,  has  more  given  to  him. 
. . .  He  who  hath  not,  in  whom  there  is  no  spark  of  spiritual 

'  Alford  on  Acts  xv.  10. 

-  On  supposed  sanction  of  Human  Sacrifices,  see  under  Ethical  Dis- 
crcpamies. 


84  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

desire  nor  meetness  to  receive  the  engrafted  word,  has  taken 
from  him  even  that  which  he  hath  ('  seemeth  to  have,'  Luke)  ; 
even  the  poor  confused  notions  of  heavenly  doctrine  which  a 
sensual  and  careless  life  allow  him  are  further  bewildered  and 
darkened  by  this  simple  teachmg,  into  the  depths  of  which  he 
cannot  penetrate  so  far  as  even  to  ascertain  that  they  exist." 
Dryden's  Juvenal  furnishes  a  fine  parallel  to  this  text : 

'"Tis  true  poor  Codrus  nothing  had  to  boast ; 
And  yet  poor  Codrus  all  that  nothing  lost." 

Stuart  says  that  Rom.  ix.  11-13  "refers  to  the  bestowment 
and  the  withholding  of  temporal  blessings." 

John  Taylor,  of  Norwich  :  "  Election  to  the  present  privi- 
leges and  external  advantages  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this 
world ;  and  reprobation  or  rejection,  as  it  signifies  the  not 
being  favored  with  those  privileges  and  advantages." 

Barnes :  "  He  had  preferred  Jacob,  and  had  loithheld  from 
Esau  those  privileges  and  blessings  which  he  had  conferred  on 
the  posterity  of  Jacob." 

That  temporal  privileges  and  blessings  are  very  unequally 
distributed,  no  one  can  deny.  The  fact  is  patent  to  the  most 
casual  observer.  "What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  there  un- 
righteousness with  God  ?  "  If  this  fact  constitutes  an  objection 
against  the  justice  of  this  world's  Governor,  it  is  an  objection 
which  the  infidel  is  as  much  bound  to  answer  as  is  the  Clu-istiau. 
The  truth  is,  the  All-wise  Sovereign  has  an  unquestionable 
right  to  bestow  his  favors  as  he  sees  fit. 

Punishes  for  others'  sins.  Does  not  thtis  jnmish. 

And    Ham,    the  father  of   Canaan,  Tlic  fatlicrs  shall  not  be  iiut  to  death 

(<aw  the  nakertni'sa   of  his  father,  and  lor  tlic  children,  noitluT  shall  the  chil- 

told  hiK  two  brethren  without.      And  dren  be  put  to  d<alh  (or  the  lathers: 

Noali  awoke  from  his  wine,  and  knew  every  man  sliall  be  jiut  to  deatli  for  liis 

what  liis   younfrer  son  had  done  unto  own  sin      Deut.  xxiv.  IG. 

him      And  he  said,  Cursed /jc  tanaan;  Heboid,  all  souls   are   mine;    as   the 

a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of 

his  brethren      (ien.  ix.  22,  24.  25.  the  son  is  mine:  the  soul  that  sinneth, 

Viiitin"  the   ininuity  of  the  fatliers  it  shall  die.    The  son  shall  not  bear  tho 

upon  th«rchildreii  unto  the  third  and  iniquity  of  the  lather,  neither  shall  the 

f.'urth    oeiKialioii  of  tliem   that  hate  father  bear  the  iniquity  ol  the  son  ;  the 

me       Kx    XX    5  rif.'hteonsness  of  the  ri).'hteous  shall  bo 

\nd.i.i-hua,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  upon  liini,  and  the  wiokediie.ss  of  the 

took  Achan  the  son  of  /erah,  and  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him.    b/ek.  xviu. 

silver,  and  thi-  garment,  tti:d  the  wedge  4,  20. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  85 

Punishes  for  others'  sins.  Does  not  thus  punish. 

ofpold,  and  his  sons,  and  his  daughters,        The    rifrhtpous    judgment    of   God; 
and  liis  oxen,  and  his  asses,  and  his    Who  will  render  to  every  man  accord- 
sheep,  and  his  teut,  and  all  that  he    lug  to  his  deeds.    Rom.  ii.  6,  6. 
had :  and  they  brought  them  unto  the 
valley  of  Aclior.     And  all  Israel  stoned 
him  with  stones,  and  burned  them  with 
fire,  after  they  had  stoned  them  with 
stones     And  they  raised  over  him  a 
great  heap  of  stones  unto  this  day.    So 
the  Loui>  turned  from  the  tierceness  of 
his  auger.    Josh.  vii.  24-26. 

VVImt  mean  ye,  that  ye  use  this 
proverb  concerning  the  laud  of  Israel, 
saying.  The  fatliers  hnve  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
on  edge?    Ezek.  xviii.  2. 

As  to  the  case  of  Canaan,  it  cannot  be  proved,  though  often 
assumed,  that  he  was  cursed  for  the  misconduct  of  Ham,  liis 
father.  Bush  thinks  that  Ham's  gross  disrespect  or  con- 
temptuous deportment  toward  liis  aged  parent  became,  "under 
the  prompting  of  inspiration,  a  suggesting  occasion  of  the  curse 
now  pronounced.  . . .  Noah  therefore  uttered  the  words  from 
an  inspired  foresight  of  the  sins  and  abominations  of  the 
abandoned  stock  of  the  Canaanites." 

Keil :  "  Noah,  through  the  spirit  and  power  of  that  God 
with  whom  he  walked,  discerned  in  the  moral  nature  of  his 
sons,  and  the  different  tendencies  which  they  already  displayed, 
the  germinal  commencement  of  the  futm'e  course  of  their  pos- 
terity, and  uttered  words  of  blessing  and  of  curse  which  were 
prophetic  of  the  history  of  the  tribes  that  descended  from  them." 
The  reason  why  Canaan  alone  of  Ham's  sons  was  specified 
"  must  either  lie  in  the  fact  that  Canaan  was  already  walking 
in  the  steps  of  his  father's  impiety  and  sin,  or  else  be  sought  in 
the  name  '  Canaan,'  ^  in  which  Noah  discerned,  through  the 
gift  of  prophecy,  a  significant  omen ;  a  supposition  decidedly 
favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  Japhet,^ 
which  is  also  founded  upon  the  name." 

Lange  thinks  that  Noah's  malediction  is  "  only  to  be  ex- 
plained on  the  ground  that,  in  the  prophetic  spirit,  he  saw  into 

*  That  is,  "  the  submis.sive  one";  Keil. 

*  "  Widely  spreading,"  so  Gesenivis. 

8 


86  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  future,  and  that  the  vision  had  for  its  point  of  departure 
the  then  present  natural  state  of  Canaan." 

Aben  Ezra/  Easlii,  the  Talmudists,  Scaliger,  and  others^ 
with  Tayler  Lewis,  hold  that  Canaan  too  saw  Noah  in  his 
exposed  condition,  and  that  he  committed  a  cruel  and  wanton 
outrage,  or  some  unnamed  beastly  crime,  upon  the  person  of 
the  sleeping  patriarch ;  and  that  this  vile  indignity  drew  down 
the  severe  denunciation  upon  him  as  the  actual  offender.  Prof. 
Lewis  ^  assigns  the  following  reasons  for  this  opinion :  The 
Hebrew  rendered  '  his  younger  son,'  cannot  refer  to  Ham,  who 
was  older  than  Japheth,  but  means  the  least  or  youngest  of  the 
family,  and  hence  is  descriptive  of  Canaan.  The  words  '  had 
done  unto  him'  mean  something  more  than  an  omission  or 
neglect.  The  expression  is  a  very  positive  one.  Something 
unmistakable,  something  very  shameful  had  been  done  to  the 
old  man  in  his  unconscious  state,  and  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
becomes  manifest  to  him  immediately  on  his  recovery.  "  There 
seems  to  be  a  careful  avoidance  of  particularity.  The  language 
has  an  euphemistic  look,  as  though  intimating  something  too 
vile  and  atrocious  to  be  openly  expressed.  Thus  regarded, 
everything  seems  to  point  to  some  wanton  act  done  by  the  very 
one  who  is  immediately  named  in  the  severe  malediction  that 
follows :  '  Cursed  be  Canaan.'  He  was  the  younfjest  son  of 
Ham,  as  he  was  also  the  youngest  son  of  Noah,  according  to 
the  well-established  Shemitic  peculiarity  by  which  all  the  de- 
scendants are  alike  called  sons."  This  explanation  is  equally 
j)lausiblc  and  natural. 

On  either  of  the  above  hypotheses,  Canaan  was  punished  not 
for  others'  misconduct,  but  for  his  own ;  hence  the  charge  of 
"  injustice  "  in  the  case  is  without  foundation. 

As  to  Ex.  XX.  5,  we  may  say  that  Jehovah  '•  visits "  the 
iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children,  in  that  he  jiermits 
the  latter  to  suffer  in  consequence  of  tlie  sins  of  the  former. 

>  Sec  Conciliator,  i.  83.  ■  In  Lanse  on  Genesis,  p.  338. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  87 

He  has  established  such  hiws  of  matter  and  mind  that  the  sins 
of  parents  result  in  the  physical  and  mental  disease  and 
suffering  of  their  offsprmg.  The  drunkard  bequeaths  to  his 
children  poverty,  shame,  wretchedness,  impau-ed  health,  and  not 
infrequently  a  burning  thh-st  for  strong  drink.  The  licentious 
man  often  transmits  to  his  helpless  offsprmg  liis  depraved 
appetites  and  loathsome  diseases.  And  this  transmission  or 
"  visitation  "  of  evil  takes  place  in  accordance  with  the  inflexible 
laws  of  the  universe.  Obviously,  "  injustice  "  is  no  less  charge- 
able upon  the  Author  of  "  the  laws  of  nature "  than  upon  the 
Author  of  the  Bible. 

Even  if  the  above  text  conveys  the  idea  not  only  of  suffering, 
but  also  of  punishment,  yet  the  language,  "  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  Generation  of  them  that  hate  me"  indicates  children  who 
are  sinful  like  their  parents.  Hengstenberg :  ^  "  The  threatening 
is  directed  against  those  children  who  tread  in  their  fathers' 
footsteps."  Plainly  children  are  intended  who  imitate  and 
adopt  the  sinful  habits  and  practices  of  their  parents ;  hence, 
being  morally,  as  well  as  physically,  the  representatives  and 
heirs  of  their  parents,  they  may  be,  in  a  certam  sense,  punished 
for  the  sins  of  those  parents.  Bush :  "  The  tokens  of  the 
divine  displeasure  were  to  flow  along  the  line  of  those  who  con- 
tinued the  haters  of  God." 

As  to  the  case  of  Achan's  sons  and  daughters,  Canon 
Browne  ^  says :  "  The  sanguinary  severity  of  Oriental  nations, 
from  which  the  Jewish  people  were  by  no  means  free,  has  in 
all  ages  involved  the  cliildren  in  the  punishment  of  the  fathei-." 
Many,  however,  think  that  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  were 
simply  taken  into  the  valley  to  be  spectators  of  the  punishment 
inflicted  upon  the  father,  that  it  might  be  a  warnmg  to  them. 
Some  explain  the  execution  upon  the  ground  of  (iod's  sove- 
reignty, and  his  consequent  right  to  send  death  at  any  time  and 
in  any  form  he  pleases. 

Keil  and  others  hold  that  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  were 

1  On  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  448.  -  In  Smitli's  Hib.  Diet.,  Art.  "Aelian." 


88  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

accomplices  in  his  crime.  "  The  things  themselves  had  heen 
abstracted  from  the  booty  by  Achan  alone  ;  but  he  had  hidden 
them  in  his  tent,  buried  them  in  the  earth,  which  could  hardly 
have  been  done  so  secretly  that  his  sons  and  daughters  knew 
nothing  of  it.  By  so  doing  he  had  made  his  family  participators 
in  his  theft ;  they  therefore  fell  under  the  ban  along  with  him, 
together  with  their  tent,  their  cattle,  and  the  rest  of  their 
property,  which  were  all  involved  in  the  consequences  of  liis 
crime." 

The  "  proverb,"  Ezek  xviii.  2,  implied  that  the  sufferings  of 
the  Jews,  at  that  time,  were  not  at  all  in  consequence  of  their 
own  sms,  but  exclusively  for  the  sins  of .  their  ancestors  —  a 
false  and  dangerous  idea,  fitly  rebuked  by  the  Almighty. 

Slaps  the  rif/Jiteous  toith  the  vnckecl.  Spai-es  the  righteous. 

This  is  one  thiiifi,  theroforo  I  said  it,  Hath  walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath 

He    destroyotli    the    perfect    and    the  kept  my  judgments,  to  deal  truly;  he 

wicked.    Job  ix.  22.  is  just,  he  shall  surely  live,  saith  the 

And  say  to  the  land  of  Israel,  Thus  Lord  (iod.     When  the  son  hath  done 

saith  the  Louu:  IJehold  1  nm  ajiainst  that  which   is  lawful   and  right,  and 

thee,  and  will  draw  fortli  my  sword  out  hath   kept  al!  my   statutes,  and  liath 

of  his  sheath,  and  will  cut  oil' from  thee  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live.    Ezek. 

the  rifrhteous  and  the  wicked.     Seeing  xviii.  0,  19. 

then  that  1  will  cut  off  from  thee  the  Hut    if  the  wicked    turn    from    his 

righteuusand  the  wicked, thereforeshall  wickedness,  and  do  that  which  is  law- 

my  sword  go  forth  out  of  his  sheath  ful   and   right,  he  shall  live  thereby, 

against  all  flesh  from  the  south  to  the  Ezek.  xx.xiii.  19. 

north.    Kzek.  xxi.  3,  4.  Kow  the  just   shall    live   by  faith. 

lleb.  X.  38. 

The  first  texts  do  not  teach  that  God,  regardless  of  character, 
cuts  down  the  evil  and  the  good  together.  The  two  classes 
may  be  alike  in  the  external  circumstances  of  their  death ;  but 
they  are  totally  unlike  in  their  destiny.  The  righteous  are,  at 
death  and  by  death,  "  taken  away  from  the  evil  to  come." '  It 
may  be  the  greatest  possible  blessing,  the  highest  mark  of  the 
divine  favor,  to  a  good  man  to  be  summarily  and  forever  re- 
moved from  the  sorrows  and  impending  evils  of  earth  to  the 
ineffable  bliss  and  repose  of  heaven.  The  second  series  of 
texts  refers  to  spiritual,  and  not  earthly  life.  Since  the  two 
series  of  passages  contemplate  things  entirely  different,  there  is 
no  collision  between  them. 

'  Isaiuli  Ivii.  1,  2. 


DOCTBINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


89 


JBenevolence. 

God  witholcis  h'is  blessinf/s. 
And    when  ye    spread    ibrtli    your 


Besioics  them  freely. 

For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth  ; 
and  lie  tliat  seeketh  lindetli;  and  to 
him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened. 
Luke  xi.  10. 

Jf  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him 
ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men  liber- 
ally, and  upbraideth  not:  and  it  shall 
be  given  him.    James  i.  5. 


hands,  1  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you  : 
yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  1 
will  not  hear:  your  hands  are  full  of 
blood.    Isa.  i.  15. 

'Ihen  shall  they  cry  unto  the  Lord, 
but  he  will  not  hear  them :  he  will  even 
hide  his  face  from  them  at  that  time, 
as  they  liave  behaved  themselves  ill  in 
their  doings.     Micahiii.4. 

Ye  ask,  and  receive  not,  because  ye 
ask  amiss,  that  ye  may  consume  it  upon 
youi  lusts.    James  iv.  3. 

The  limiting  clauses  of  the  first  three  texts,  "hands  full  of 
blood,"  "  ill  behavior,"  and  "  asking  amiss,"  show  clearly  why 
God  withholds  his  blessings  in  these  cases.  Moreover,  the 
connection  in  which  the  last  two  texts  stand  evinces  that  these 
texts  were  not  intended  to  be  of  universal  application.  They 
contemplate  those  persons  only  who  "  ask  in  faith." '  Every 
one  that  asketh  aright,  receiveth.  The  principle  upon  which 
God,  in  answer  to  prayer,  bestows  his  blessings,  is  thus  enun- 
ciated :  "  If  we  ask  anything  according  to  his  will,  he  heareth 
us."^  It  should  be  added  that  such  limiting  clauses  as  the 
above  are,  in  order  to  make  out  a  contradiction,  chshonestly 
suppressed  by  those  writers  who  engage  in  the  manufacture  of 
"  discrepancies." 


Hardens  men's  hearts. 

And  the  Loud  hardened  the  heart  of 
Pharaoh,  and  lie  hearkened  not  unto 
them.     l-x.  i.K.  12. 

And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses.  Go 
in  unto  I'haraoh:  for  1  have  hardened 
his  heart,  and  the  heart  of  his  servants, 
that  I  might  shew  these  my  signs  be- 
fore him.     P>x.  X.  1. 

And  Moses  and  Aaron  did  all  these 
wonders  before  riiarat>h  :  and  the  Lord 
hardened  Pharaoli's  heart,  so  that  lie 
would  not  lot  the  children  of  Israel  go 
out  (if  his  land.     Kx.  xi.  10. 

r>iit  Sihon  king  of  Heshbon  would 
not  let  us  pass  by  him:  for  the  Lor.D 
thy  (Jod  hardened  his  spirit,  and  made 
his  heart  obstinate,  that  he  might  de- 
liver him  into  thy  hand,  as  appearcth 
this  day.     Deut.  ii.  30. 

For  it  was  of  the  Lord  to  harden 
their  hearts,  that   they  should  come 

*  See  James  i.  6. 
8* 


They  harden  their  own  hearts. 

But  when  I'haraoh  saw  that  there 
was  res])ite,  he  hardened  his  heart,  and 
hearkened  iint  unto  them.  . . .  And  Pha- 
raoh hurdciied  his  heart  at  this  time 
also,  neither  would  he  let  the  jjeople 
go.    Ex.  viii.  15,  32. 

And  when  Pharaoh  saw  that  the  rain 
and  the  hail  and  the  thunders  were 
ceased,  he  sinned  yet  more,  and  har- 
dened his  heart,  he  and  his  servants. 
Kx.  ix.  34. 

Wherefore  tlien  do  ye  harden  your 
hearts,  as  the  Kgy|)tians  and  Pharaoh 
hardened  their  hearts?    1  .Sam.  vi.  G. 

And  he  also  rebelled  against  king 
Nebuchadnezzar,  who  had  made  him 
swearby  (jod:  but  hestilU>ned  his  neck, 
and  hardened  his  heart  from  turning 
unto  the  Loud  God  of  Israel.  2  C'hrou. 
xxxvi.  13. 

ilappy  is  the  man  that  feareth  alway : 

»  1  John  V.  U. 


90  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Hardens  men's  hearts.  Tliey  harden  their  own  hearts. 

against  Israel  in  battle,  that  he  might    but  he  that  hardeneth  his  heart  shall 
destroy   them    utterly,  and  that    they    fall  into  mischief.     Prov.  xxviii.  14. 
niifrlit    have    no    favor,    but    that    he        Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the 
miirlit  destroy  tlieui,  as  the  Loiiu  com-    provocation,  in  the  day  of  temptation 
mauded  Jloses.    Josh,  xi  20.  in  the  wilderness.    Heb.  iii.  8. 

O  LonD,  why  liast  tlmu  made  us  to 
err  from  thy  ways,  and  hardened  our 
heart  from  tliy  fear  '!    Isa.  Ixiii.  17. 

He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  har- 
dened their  heart ;  that  tlu'y  should  not 
see  with  llitir  eyes,  nor  understand  with 
their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and  1 
should  heal  them.    John  xii.  40. 

Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom 
lie  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will 
he  hardeneth.    liom.  ix.  18. 

We  may  premise  that  the  rejection  of  truth  and  the  abuse  of 
blessings  tend  ever  to  "  harden  the  heart."  God,  therefore,  by 
making  known  his  truth  and  by  bestowing  his  blessings,  indi- 
rectly "  hardens  "  men's  hearts  ;  that  is,  fm*nishes  occasion  for 
their  hardening.  Thus,  the  divine  mercy  to  Pharaoh  in  the 
withdrawal  of  the  plagues  at  his  request  became  the  occasion 
of  increasing  his  hardness.  Wlien  he  saw  that  there  was  res- 
pite, that  the  rain  and  hail  and  thunder  ceased,  he  hardened  his 
heart.^  In  brief,  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  by  removing 
calamities,  and  bestowing  blessings  ;  Pharaoh  hardened  his  own 
heart  by  perverting  these  blessings  and  abusing  the  grace  of 
God. 

Theodoret :  ^  "  The  sun,  by  the  force  of  its  heat,  moistens 
the  wax  and  dries  the  clay,  softening  the  one  and  hardening 
the  other ;  and,  as  this  produces  opposite  effects  by  the  same 
power,  so,  through  the  long-suffering  of  God,  which  reaches  to 
all,  some  receive  good  and  others  evil ;  some  are  softened,  and 
others  hardened." 

Stuart,''  concerning  Pharaoli :  "  The  Lord  hardened  liis 
heart,  beciiuse  the  Lord  was  the  author  of  commands  and 
messages  and  miracles  which  were  the  occasion  of  Pharaoh's 
hardening  his  own  heart." 

Dr.  Davidson:'*  "Tliis  does  not  mean  that  he  infused  positive 

'  Sec  Ex.  viii.  15  and  ix.  .'i4.  -  Qiiaest.  12  in  Ex. 

*  Com.  on  liomaiis,  Excursus  xi.  p.  483.      *  Sacred  IIcrmcD.,  pp.  545,  546. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  91 

wickedness  or  obstinacy  into  the  mind,  or  that  he  influenced  it 
in  any  way  inconsistent  with  his  perfections,  but  that  he  with- 
drew his  grace,  allowed  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  to  take  its  natural 
course,  and  thus  to  become  harder  and  harder.  He  permitted 
it  to  he  hardened." 

Keil,  on  Ex.  iv.  21,  observes:  "In  this  twofold  manner  God 
jiroduces  hardness,  not  only  permissive,  but  effective,  i.e.  not 
only  by  giving  time  and  space  for  the  manifestations  of  human 
opposition,  even  to  the  utmost  limits  of  creaturely  freedom,  but 
still  more  by  those  continued  manifestations  of  his  will  which 
d:-ive  the  hard  heart  to  such  utter  obduracy  that  it  is  no  longer 
capable  of  returning,  and  so  giving  over  the  hardened  sinner  to 
the  judgment  of  damnation.  Tliis  is  what  we  find  in  the  case 
of  Pharaoh." 

As  to  Sihon,  Deut.  ii.  30,  God  providentially  arranged  cir- 
cumstances so  that  the  malignant  wickedness  of  his  heart  should 
develop  and  culminate  in  "hardness"  and  " obstinacy,"  bringing 
upon  him  mei-ited  destruction. 

Bush,  on  Josh.  xi.  20  :  "  God  was  now  pleased  to  leave  them 
to  judicial  hardness  of  heart,  to  give  them  up  to  vain  confidence, 
pride,  stubbornness,  and  malignity,  that  they  might  bring  upon 
themselves  his  righteous  vengeance,  and  be  utterly  destroyed." 

As  to  the  ancient  Jews,  God  hardened  their  hearts,  in  that 
by  his  providence  he  sustained  them  in  life,  upheld  the  use  of 
all  their  powers,  caused  the  prophets  to  warn  and  reprove 
them,  and  placed  them  in  circumstances  where  they  must  receive 
these  warnings  and  reproofs.  Under  this  arrangement  of  his 
providence,  they  became  more  hardened  and  wicked. 

Delitzsch,  on  Isa.  Ixiii.  17,  remarks:  " '\\Tien  men  have 
scornfully  and  obstinately  rejected  the  grace  of  God,  he  with- 
draws it  from  them  judicially,  gives  them  up  to  their  wanderings, 
and  makes  their  heart  incapable  of  faith.  . . .  The  history  of 
Israel,  from  chap.  vi.  onwards,  has  been  the  history  of  such  a 
gradual  judgment  of  hardening,  and  such  a  curse,  eating  deeper 
and  (Irepc  r,  and  spreadmg  its  influence  wider  and  wider  round." 


92  DISCREPANCIES    OP   THE    BIBLE. 

Barnes,  on  John  xii.  40 :  ''  God  suffers  the  truth  to  produce 
a  regular  effect  on  sinful  minds,  without  putting  forth  any- 
positive  supernatural  influence  to  prevent  it.  The  effect  of 
truth  on  such  minds  is  to  irritate,  to  enrage,  and  to  harden, 
unless  counteracted  by  the  grace  of  God.  And,  as  God  knew 
tliis,  and  knowmg  it  still,  sent  the  message,  and  suffered  it  to 
produce  the  regular  effect,  the  evangelist  says,  '  He  hath 
bluided  their  minds.' " 

Alford,  on  Rom.  ix.  18:  "Whatever  difficulty  there  lies  in 

this  assertion  that  God  hardeneth  whom  he  will,  lies  also  in  the 

daily  course  of  his  providence,  in  which  we  see  this  hai'dening 

process  going  on  in  the  case  of  the  prosperous  ungodly  man." 

He  is  loarlike.  Is  peaceful. 

The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war:  the  Lokd       Now  the  God  of  peace  be  with  you 
is  his  name.     Ex.  xv.  3.  all.    Kom.  xv.  33. 

The  Loud  of  hosts  is  his  name.    Isa.        For  (Jod  is  not  the  author  of  confu- 
li.  15.  sion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  churches  of 

the  saints.    1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 

These  two  sets  of  texts  present  God  in  a  twofold  aspect  — 
in  his  attitude  toward  sin  and  incorrigible  sinners,  on  the  one 
luuid,  and  that  toward  holiness  and  the  good,  on  the  other.  He 
is  hostile  in  respect  to  the  one,  and  friendly  in  relation  to  the 
other.  All  his  attributes  are  at  war  with  evil,  but  at  peace 
with  "  that  which  is  good."  Every  good  magistrate  and  ruler 
sustains  a  similar  twofold  relation.  Ilis  attitude  toward  law- 
abiding  citizens  is  a  peaceful  one,  while  in  respect  to  evU-doers 
he  "  bcareth  not  the  sword  in  vain."  * 

3Iei'ct/. 

Unmerciful  and  ferocious.  Merciful  and  kind. 

And  thou  .fhalt  consume  all  the  peo-  O  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord;  for  Ae 

j)lc  which  the  I/(HM>  thy  (jod  shall  do-  i.s  pood;    for   his   mercy  eiulureth  for 

liver  thee:  thine  eye.-hall  have  no  pity  ever.  1  Chriin.  xvi.  34. 

u|j<)ii  tliem.     Dent!  vii.  It).  The    Loun   is  pood   to  all;  and  his 

Aiid  he  sniiite  the  men  of  I'.eth-she-  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works. 

nie-.h,  hecaiise  they  hail  looked  into  the  I's.  c.xlv.  ii. 

ark  of  the  Lord,  even  he  smote  t)f  the  //  i.t  n/' the  Lord's  mercies  th.at  we 

people  lifty  tlioiisaini  and  three  score  are  not  cinisumod,  because  his  compas- 

and  ten  men.     1  fiixm.  vi.  lli.  sions  fail  not.     J.am   iii.  22. 

Thus  saith  the   Loud  of  hosts,  I  re-  The  l^ord  is  very  i)itiful  and  of  ten- 
member  tlidt   which    Amaiek    (iid   to  der  mercy.    Jas.  v.  iL 
Jsrael.  how  he  laid  wtiit  for  him  in  the  Clod  is  love.     1  John  iv.  IG. 
way,  wIkmi   he  came   up  from    K;;ypt. 
Mow  ^o  aud  smite  Amaiek,  and  utterly 

•  See  Kom.  xiii.  8,  4. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  93 

Unmerciful  nndferocion/i.  Merciful  and  kind. 

destroy  all  that  tlioy  havp,  and  spare 
tlicni  "not:  but  slay  both  man  and 
woman,  infant  and  sucklinfr,  ox  and 
sliwp,  cami'l  and  ass.      1  8ani.  xv.  2,  3. 

And  1  will  da.sh  them  one  against 
another,  even  the  fathers  and  the  sons 
tojrether,  saith  the  Lord:  1  will  not 
jiity.  nor  spare,  nor  have  mercy,  but 
de.stroy  tliem.    Jer.  xiii.  14. 

For  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire. 
Heb.  xii.  29. 

As  to  the  iiijunctiou  to  slay  the  Canaanites,  in  Deut.  vii.,  see 
the  discussion  elsewhere.^ 

In  respect  to  the  Bethshemites,  there  is,  in  all  probability,  a 
mistake  in  the  number  specified.  "  Seventy  men  "  is  the  true 
reading,  with  which  Josephus*^  agrees.  Copyists  often  made 
these  mistakes,  by  taking  one  numeral  letter  for  another  which 
closely  resembled  it.  In  our  present  Hebrew  text  the  words 
stand  "seventy  men,  fifty  thousand  men."  But  in  several 
manuscripts  the  Hebrew  answering  to  "  fifty  thousand  men  "  is 
entirely  wanting.  From  this  circumstance,  and  the  fact  that 
the  town  of  Bethshemesh  could  by  no  means  fm-nish  anything 
like  fifty  thousand  men,  Keil  and  others  hold  that  the  expression 
"  fifty  thousand  men  "  has  rightfully  no  place  in  the  text,  but 
has  crept  in,  by  some  oversight,  fi'om  the  margin.^  But  it  may 
be  asserted  that  the  element  of  number  does  not  necessarily 
come  into  the  account — that  the  death  of  one  person,  under 
those  circumstances,  presents  as  real  a  difficulty  as  would  that  of 
fifty  thousand  persons.  It  is  needful  to  say  only  that  these 
Bethshemites  evinced  a  profane  and  sacrilegious  curiosity,  and 
disobeyed  the  most  solemn,  explicit,  and  repeated  warnings  of 
Jehovah.  For  example,  we  read,  in  respect  to  some  of  the 
Levites  even,  "  The  sons  of  Kohath  shall  come  to  bear  it ;  but 
they  shall  not  tovich  any  holy  thing,  lest  they  die";  and  "They 
shall  not  go  in  to  see  when  the  holy  thuigs  are  covered,  lest 

'  Ethical  Discrepancies;  "Enemies  treated." 

'^  Antiq.  vi.  1,  4. 

^  Lord  Arthur  Ilervej',  in  Bible  Commentary,  expresses  the  opinion  that 
the  error  arose  from  the  use  of  numeral-letters;  Ayin  (s)  denotin};  70 
being  mistaken  for  dotted  Nun  (-)  representing  50000. 


94  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE, 

tliey  die.'"  The  rabbles  say  that  the  Bethshemites  actually 
opened  aud  looked  iuto  the  ark.  It  was  essential  to  teach  the 
people,  at  this  time,  a  solemn  and  effective  lesson  with  reference 
to  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  sacred  tilings  and  of  ap- 
proaching Jehovah. 

The  reason  for  the  command  in  1  Sam.  xv.  is  as  follows : 
"When  the  Hebrews  were  toiling  along  on  their  weary  ])il- 
grimage  from  Egypt  to  Canaan,  the  Amalekites  hung  upon 
their  rear,  laid  wait  for  them,  and  butchered  in  cold  blood 
all  who  were  unable  to  keep  up  with  the  main  body.  The 
following  is  the  artless  language  of  the  sacred  historian :  "  Re- 
member what  Amalek  did  unto  thee  by  the  way,  when  ye  were 
come  forth  out  of  Egypt ;  how  he  met  thee  by  the  way,  and 
smote  the  hindmost  of  thee,  even  all  that  were  feeble  behind 
thee,  when  thou  wast  faint  and  weary  ;  aud  he  feared  not 
God."  2 

They  did  this,  says  Keil,  "  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
plundering,  or  of  dis2:)uting  the  possession  of  this  district  and 
its  pasture  grounds  with  the  Israelites,  but  to  assail  Israel  as 
the  nation  of  God,  and,  if  possible,  to  destroy  it."  The 
Amalekites,  as  we  gather  from  the  narrative,  were,  in  earlier 
and  in  later  times  a  horde  of  ferocious  and  bloodthirsty  guer- 
rillas. It  seemed  best  to  the  Almighty  to  extirpate  a  race  so 
hard(;ned  and  depraved,  so  utterly  lost  to  the  nobler  feelings 
of  mankind.  Hence  he  said  to  Saul :  "  Go,  and  utterly  destroy 
the  sinners,  the  Amalekites."^  In  pursuance  of  this  object,  he 
was  ordered  to  "slay  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling." 

It  is  oI)jected  that  this  command  2)roves  God  to  be  ''  cruel." 
If  so,  the  fact  that  in  numberless  cases  he  slays  tender  babes, 
innocent  little  ones,  l)y  painful  diseases,  famine,  pestilence, 
eartlujuakcs,  hurricanes,  and  the  like,  militates  e(|ually  against 
him.  Tlic  cliargi!  of  "cruelty"  lies  just  as  heavily  against  tlie 
order  of  things  in  this  icorld,  by  whatever  name  it  may  be 
designated,  as  it  does  against  Jehovah. 

»  Num.  iv.  15  and  20.  -  Deut.  xxv.  17,  18.  M  Sam.  xv.  18. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  95 

Besides,  had  the  women  and  children  been  spared,  there 
would  soon  have  been  a  fresh  crop  of  adult  Amalekites,  pre- 
cisely like  their  predecessors.  Or,  suppose  merely  the  children 
had  been  saved ;  if  left  to  care  for  themselves,  they  must  have 
miserably  perished  of  starvation ;  if  adopted  and  reared  in 
Israelite  famihes,  they  might,  from  their  hereditary  dispositions 
and  proclivities  to  evil,  have  proved  a  most  undesu-able  and 
pernicious  element  in  the  nation.  It  was,  doubtless,  on  the 
whole,  the  best  thing  for  the  world  that  the  Amalekite  race 
should  be  exterminated. 

The  people  so  severely  threatened  in  Jer.  xiii.  14  were 
abommably  corrupt  and  depraved.  In  Jer.  vii.  9,  they  are 
charged  with  theft,  murder,  adultery,  perjury,  burning  incense 
to  Baal,  and  with  idolatry  in  general.  Yet,  as  the  connection  ^ 
clearly  shows,  the  severe  threatening  above  mentioned  was  a 
conditional  one.  They  might  have  repented,  and  escaped.  They 
would  not  reform,  hence  the  threatening  was  strictly  carried  out. 

As  to  Ileb.  xii.  29,  God  is  a  "  consuming  fire  "  in  respect  to 
evil  and  evil-doers.  According  to  Alford,  the  fact  that  "  God's 
anger  continues  to  burn  now,  as  then,  against  those  who  reject 
his  kingdom,  is  brought  in ;  and  in  the  back-groimd  lie  all  those 
gracious  dealings  by  which  the  fire  of  God's  presence  and 
purity  becomes  to  his  people,  while  it  consumes  their  vanity 
and  sin  and  eartlily  state,  the  fire  of  purity  and  light  and  love 
for  their  enduring  citizenship  of  his  kingdom." 

His  anr/er  fierce  and  lasting.  Slovj  ajid  brief. 

The  fierce  anper  of  the   Lord  may        For  his  anger  ejjrfMrc^/i  6it/l  a  moment. 
be  turned  away  from    Israel.     Kum.    I's.  xxx.  6. 
XXV.  4.  The  Loud  is  merciful  and  cracious. 

And  the  Lord's  anper  was  kindled    slow  to  anger,  and  plenteous  in  mercy, 
against  L<rael,  and  he  made  them  wan-    He  will  not  always  chide:  neither  will 
der  in  the  wilderness  forty  years,  until    he  keep  his  anger  for  ever.     Ps.  ciii. 
all  the  generation,  that  had  done  evil    8,  9. 
in  thesight  of  the  Lord,  was  consumed. 
Kum.  xxxii.  13. 

Wilt  thou  be  angry  with  us  for  ever? 
wilt  thou  dmw  out  thine  anger  to  all 
generations?    Ts.  Ixxxv.  5. 

The  "  fierce  anger  "of  the  Lord  is  his  intense  and  infinite 
*  See  Jer.  xiii.  lo-17. 


96  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

displeasure  at  everytliiug  unholy  and  evil.  He  is  "  slow  to 
anger";  for  though  he  feels  an  uifintte  abhorrence  of  sin,  yet 
he  bears  long  with  the  sinner,  before  giving  punitive  ex- 
pression to  that  abhorrence.  He  dealt  very  patiently  with  the 
Israelites,  as  their  history  abundantly -shows. 

As  to  Ps.  XXX.  5,  Delitzsch  observes :  " '  A  moment  passes 
in  his  anger,  a  (whole)  life  in  his  favor,'  that  is,  the  former 
endui'es  only  for  a  moment,  the  latter,  the  whole  life  of  a 
man." 

The  anger  of  God  ceases  upon  the  repentance  of  the  sinner. 

In  relation  to  a  certain  class  of  persons,  that  anger  is  tierce  and 

lasting,  but  with  respect  to  a  different  class,  it  is  slow  and  brief. 

Feorful  to  fall  bito  his  hnncls.  Not  fearful. 

It  is  a  Tearful  thin?  to  fall  into  the  And  David  said  unto  Gad.  I  am  in  a 
hands  of  the  living  God.    Heb.  x.  31.       ercat  strait:  let  us  fall   now  into  the 

hand  of  the  Lord  :  for  his  mercies  are 
great :  and  let  nic  not  fall  into  the  hand 
of  man.    2  Sam.  xxiv.  li. 

The  first  text  refers  to  the  case  of  apostates  and  other  incor- 
rigible sinners  ;  the  second  to  the  case  of  those  who  are  truly 
penitent.  Alford :  "  The  two  sentiments  are  easUy  set  at  one. 
For  the  faithful,  in  their  chastisement,  it  is  a  blessed  thing  to 
fall  into  God's  hands ;  for  the  unfaithful,  in  their  doom,  a 
dreadful  one." 

LaupTis  at  sinner's  overthrow.  Has  no  pleasure  in  it. 

I  also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity  :  I  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
will  mock  when  your  fear  cometh.  of  him  that  dictli.saith  the  I.oud  God: 
Itov.  i.  26.  wherefore  turn  nourselren,  and  live  ye. 

Ezek.  xviii.  32. 

The  persons  addressed  in  tlie  first  text  are  obdurate  despisers 
and  scomers  who  have  persistently  rejected  God's  admonitions. 
So,  when  calamities  overtake  them,  he  contemptuously  rejects 
their  prayers,  which  have  no  trace  of  penitence  in  them,  but 
are  the  offspring  of  base  fear.  On  this  passage  Stuart  com- 
ments as  follows :  "  I  shall  henceforth  treat  you  as  enemies 
who  deserve  contemjtt.  . . .  The  intensity  of  the  tropical  lan- 
guage lu'ie  makes  the  expression  exceedingly  strong.  Lauffhing 
at  and  mocking  are  expressions  of  the  highest  and  most  con- 
temptuous indignation." 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  97 

The  second  text  refers  to  persons  who,  though  smfiil,  were 
less  hardened  and  in  a  more  hopeful  condition  than  the  former 

class. 

A  God  of  Justice.  Of  Mercy. 

JJe  is  the  Rock,  his  work  is  perfect:  The  Lord  your  God  is  pracious  and 

for  all  his  ways  are  judgment:  a  God  merciful,  and  will  not  turn  away  his 

of  truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  face  from  you,  if  ye  return  unto  him. 

right  is  he.    Deut.  xxxii.  4.  2  Chron.  xxx.  9. 

God's  justice  is  not  restricted  to  what  is  termed  "distributive 
justice,"  which  gives  to  every  man  his  exact  deserts,  leaving  no 
room  for  the  exercise  of  mercy.  The  divine  justice  is  that 
"  general  justice  "  which  carries  out  completely  all  the  ends  of 
law,  sometimes  by  remitting,  and  at  other  times  by  inflicting, 
the  penalty,  according  as  the  offender  is  penitent  or  otherwise. 
Every  wise  parent  and  ruler  employs  general  justice,  securing 
the  great  ends  of  government  by  punishmg  offenders,  or  by 
showing  mercy,  as  circumstances  may  warrant.  The  following 
is  a  striking  passage :  "  Unto  thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  mercy ; 
for  thou  renderest  to  every  man  according  to  his  work."  ^  From 
this  text  it  would  seem  that,  in  the  Psalmist's  view,  mercy  and 
justice  are  so  far  from  being  incompatible,  that  the  one  attri- 
bute is  dependent  upon  the  other.  "  Thou  art  merciful,  for 
thou  art  just."  Hengstenberg :  "  He  must  have  loving-kind- 
ness, inasmuch  as  it  is  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  God  as  the 
righteous  One,  tliat  he  recompense  every  one  according  to  his 
work,  and  therefore  manifest  himself  as  compassionate  to  the 
righteous,  %yhile  he  destroys  the  wicked." 

He  hates  some.  Is  kind  to  all. 

Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother?  saith        The  Loud  is  good  to  all.  Ps.  cxlv.  9. 
the  Loud:  yet  1   loved  Jacob,  and  I 
hated  Esau.    Mai.  i.  2,  3. 

The  word  ''  hate  "  is  used  here,  as  often  in  scripture,'"'  in  the 
sense  of  to  love  less.  If  one  person  was  preferred  to  another, 
the  former  was  said  to  be  "  loved,"  the  latter  "  hated."  Hen- 
derson observes :   "  As  the  opposite  of   love  is    hatred,  when 

>  Ps.  Ixii.  12. 

-  See  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31 ;  Prov.  xiii.  24 ;  also  Luke  .xiv.  26,  compared  with 
Matt.  x.  37. 

9 


98  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

there  is  only  an  inferior  degree  of  the  former  exhibited,  the 
object  of  it  is  regarded  as  being  hated,  rather  than  loved." 

Vevacity. 

God  cannot  lie.  Semis  forth  bjing  spirits. 

The  Strenortli  of  Israel  will  not  lie.        And  he  said,  Hoar  thou  therefore  the 

1  Sam.  XV.  29.  word  of  the   Lord;   I  saw  the  Lord 

That  by  two  immutable  thinjrs,  in    sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host 

whicli  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie.    of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his  right 

Hob.  vi.  18.  hand  and  on  his  left      And  the  Ixjrd 

said,  Who  shall  persuade  Ahab,  that 
he  may  go  up  and  fall  at  Kamoth-gil- 
ead?  And  one  said  on  this  manner, 
and  another  said  on  that  manner.  Ami 
there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and  stood 
before  the  Lord,  and  said,  I  will  per- 
suade him.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
him.  Wherewith?  And  he  said,  1  will 
go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in 
the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  he 
said,  Thou  shalt  persuade /(('m,  and  pre- 
vail also;  go  forth,  and  do  so.  Now 
therefore,  behold,  the  Lord  liath  imt 
a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these 
thy  prophets,  and  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  evil  concerning  thee.  1  Kings 
xxii.  19-23. 

The  whole  declaration  of  Micaiah,  in  the  passage  at  the 
right,  is  a  higlily  figin-ative  and  poetical  description  of  a  vision 
he  had  seen.  Puttuig  aside  its  rhetorical  drapery,  the  gist  of 
the  whole  passage  is  that  God  for  Judicial  purposes  suffered 
Ahah  to  he  fotalhj  deceived.  Bahr  :  "  Because  Ahab,  who  had 
abandoned  God  and  liardened  his  heart,  desired  to  use  prophecy 
for  his  own  purposes,  it  is  determined  that  he  shall  be  led  to 
ruin  by  prophecy.  As  God  often  used  the  heathen  nations  as 
the  rod  of  his  wrath  for  the  chastisement  of  Israel  (Isa.  x.  5), 
so  now  lie  uses  Ahab's  false  prophets  to  bring  upon  Ahab  the 
judgment  which  Elijah  had  foretold  against  him." 

A.  Fuller  : '  "•  That  spirit  to  wliom  thou  hast  sold  thyself  to 
work  ^\^ckedness  in  tlie  sight  of  the  Lord  now  desires  thee  as 
liis  prey.  He  that  has  seduced  thee  into  sin  now  asks  per- 
mission of  God  to  deceive  thy  propliets,  that  he  may  plunge 
thee  into  destruction  ;  and  God  has  granted  him  his  desire. 
And  tliat  which  Satan  is  doing  for  his  own  ends,  God  will  do 
tor  his.     There  is  as  much  of  the  judicial  hand  of  God  in  a 

'  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  6:0. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


99 


Denounces  deception. 

Cursed  be  the  deceiver,  which  hath  in 
his  ttock  a  male,  and  voweth  and  sacri- 
Hceth  unto  the  Lord  a  corrupt  thing. 
Mai.  i.  14. 

I'etor  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan 
tilled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy 
Ohost,  and  to  keep  back  part  of  the 
price  of  the  land  ?    Acts  v.  3. 


lying  spirit  having  misled  thy  prophets  as  of  readiness  in  the 
evil  one  to  entangle  and  seize  thee  as  his  prey." 

Keil :  '•  Jehovah  sends  this  S2:)irit,  inasmuch  as  the  deception 
of  Ahab  has  been  inflicted  upon  him  as  a  judgment  of  God  for 
his  imbelief.  But  there  is  no  statement  here  to  the  effect  that 
this  lying  spii'it  proceeded  from  Satan,  because  the  object  of 
the  prophet  was  simply  to  bring  out  the  working  of  God  in 
the  deception  practised  upon  Ahab  by  his  prophets.  . . .  Jehovah 
has  ordained  that  Ahab,  being  led  astray  by  a  prediction  of  his 
jirophets  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  lies,  shall  enter  upon  the  war, 
that  he  may  find  therein  the  punishment  of  his  ungodliness." 

Sanctions  it. 

And  Samuel  said,  How  can  I  po?  if 
Saul  hear  it,  he  will  kill  me.  And  the 
Lord  said,  Take  an  heifer  with  thee, 
and  say,  I  am  come  to  sacrifice  to  the 
Lord.    1  Sam.  ,\vi.  2. 

O  Lord,  thou  hast  deceived  me,  and 
I  was  deceived  :  tliou  art  stronger  than 
I,  and  hast  iircvailed.    Jer.  xx.  7. 

And  if  the  prnjihet  be  deceived  when 
he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I  the  Lord 
have  deceived  that  iinijthet,  and  1  will 
stretch  out  my  hand  upon  him,  and 
will  destroy  him  fn  m  the  midst  of  my 
people  Israel.     Ezek.  xiv.  9. 

Enn  him  whose  coming  is  after  the 
working  of  .'^atan  with  all  power  and 
signs  and  lying  wonders,  and  with  all 
deceivalileness  of  uiirigliteousness  in 
them,  that  perish  ;  because  they  received 
not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  they 
might  be  saved.  Mn\  for  this  cau.se 
tiod  shall  send  them  strong  delusion, 
that  they  should  believe  a  lie:  that  they 
all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not 
the  truth,  but  had  i)leasure  in  unriirht- 
eousne.ss.    2  Thess.  ii.  9-12. 

On  the  text  from  1  Samuel,  Calvin  says :  "  There  was  no 
dissimulation  or  falsehood  in  this,  since  God  really  wished  his 
prophet  to  find  safety  under  the  pretext  of  the  sacrifice.  A 
sacrifice  was  therefore  really  offered,  and  the  prophet  was  pro- 
tected thereby,  so  that  he  was  not  exposed  to  any  danger  until 
the  time  of  full  revelation  arrived." 

Keil:  "There  was  no  untruth  in  this;  for  Samuel  was  really 
about  to  conduct  a  sacrificial  festival,  and  was  to  invite  Jesse's 
family  t(j  it,  and  then  anoint  the  one  wlidin   Jfhovah  .'-lioiild 


100      ^  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

point  out  to  him  as  the  chosen  one.  It  was  simply  a  conceal- 
ment of  the  principal  object  of  his  mission  from  any  who  might 
make  inquiry  about  it  because  they  themselves  had  not  been 
invited." 

It  is  our  privilege  to  withhold  the  truth  from  persons  who 
have  no  right  to  know  it,  and  who,  as  we  have  reason  to 
believe,  would  make  a  bad  use  of  it.  Lord  Arthur  Hervey ' 
well  observes :  "  Secrecy  and  concealment  are  not  the  same  as 
duplicity  and  falsehood.  Concealment  of  a  good  purpose,  for 
a  good  purpose,  is  clearly  justifiable ;  for  example,  in  war,  in 
medical  treatment,  in  state  policy,  and  in  the  ordinary  allairs 
of  life.  In  the  providential  government  of  the  woidd,  and  in 
God's  dealings  with  individuals,  concealment  of  his  purpose,  till 
the  jiroper  time  for  its  development,  is  the  rule,  rather  than 
the  exception,  and  must  be  so." 

Jer.  XX.  7  is  rendered  by  Davidson  -  thus :  "  O  Lord,  thou 
hast  constrained  me,  and  I  was  constrained." 

Henderson :  " '  Thou  didst  persuade  me,  O  Jehovah,  and  I 
was  persuaded.'  The  prophet  alludes  to  his  reluctance  to 
accept  the  prophetical  office,  which  it  required  powerful  induce- 
ments from  Jehovah  to  overcome."  Naegelsbach,  in  Lange, 
gives  a  similar  version. 

Ezek.  xiv.  9,  which  refers  to  idolatrous  proj)hets.  exhibits 
the  fact  that  when  men,  without  divine  authority,  set  up  as 
prophets,  God,  in  order  to  expose  the  falsity  of  their  pretensions,- 
"  deceives  "  them ;  that  is,  he  so  orders  circumstances  that  these 
prophets  will  utter  false  and  foolish  predictions,  which  by  their 
failure  shall  disclose  the  true  character  of  their  authors,  and 
overwhelm  them  with  shame  and  disgrace. 

As  to  the  last  text  of  the  second  series  above,  obsei-ve  the 
description  of  the  persons  contemplated  by  it.  The  "  deceiv- 
ablcness  of  unrighteousness "  is  in  them  ;  they  neither  love 
nor  believe  the  trutli.  Ifut  have  "  i)leasure  in  unrighteousness." 
They  deliberately  clioose  error.  As  they  prefer  falsehood 
1  In  Bible  Commentary.  =  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  435. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  101 

and  delusion  to  truth,  God  gives  them  their  choice  in  full 
measure.  With  a  judicial  purpose,  he  gives  them  what  they 
love,  together  with  all  its  fearful  consequences.^ 

Alford :  "  He  is  the  judicial  sender  and  doer  ;  it  is  he  who 
hardens  the  heart  which  has  chosen  the  evil  way." 

Ellicott :  "  The  words  are  definite  and  significant ;  they 
point  to  that  '  judicial  infatuation  '  into  which,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  just  goverAment  of  the  world,  God  causes  evil  and 
error  to  be  unfolded,  and  wliich  he  brings  into  punitive  agency 
in  the  case  of  all  obstinate  and  truth-hating  rejection  of  his 
offers  and  calls  of  mercy." 

Hahitation  of  God. 

Dwells  in  light.  Dicells  in  darkness. 

Who  only  hath  immortality,  dwell-  Thon  ppakf  Solomon.  The  Lord  said 
inp  in  the  light  which  no  man  can  ap-  that  he  would  dwell  iu  the  thick  dark- 
proach  unto.    1  Tim.  vi.  16.  nes^;.    1  Kinff-  viii.  12. 

He  made  darkness  his  secret  place; 
his  pavilion  round  about  him  were 
dark  waters  and  thick  clouds  of  the 
skies.     Ps.  xviii  11. 

Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about 
him.    I's.  xcvii.  2. 

The  meaning  may  be  that  that  in  which  God  dwells  is  ''  light " 
to  him,  but  "  darkness  "  to  us.  The  moruiug  sun,  which  is  light 
to  the  eagle,  is  darkness  and  blindness  to  nocturnal  animals. 

A  better  explanation,  perhaps,  is  the  following  :  Imagery  of 
■various  and  widely  diverse  kinds  is  employed  in  the  scriptures 
to  set  forth  the  atti'ibutes  of  God  and  his  immeasurable  remove 
from  finite  conditions  and  creatures.  ^Miere  two  or  more 
figures  are  employed  to  illustrate  the  same  idea,  we  should 
look  for  the  common  features  of  resemblance  or  common  point 
of  comparison.  In  the  case  before  us,  both  of  the  figurative 
expressions  —  "  unapproachable  light  "  and  ''  tliick  darkness  " 
—  set  forth  vividly  and  equally  well  the  unsearchahleness  of 
God  in  relation  to  his  creatures.  This  is  the  point  which,  in 
the  present  instance,  the  sacred  writers  intended  to  illustrate 
and  beyond  this  their  language  should  not  be  pressed. 

'  See  South's  Sermon  on  Falsehood  and  Lying,  Works,  i.  pp.  192-203. 
Also,  MuUcr,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  ii.  pp.  413-415  (second  edition). 
9* 


102  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

Zhvells  in  chosen  Temples.       .  Does  not  divell  there. 
And  the  I^ord  appeared  to  Solomon  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  The  heaven  is 
by  nicrht,  and  said  unto  him,  I  have  my  throne,  and  the  eartli  ix  my  foot- 
heard  thy  prayer,  and  have  chosen  this  stool :  where  is  the  house  that  ye  build 
place  to  myself  for  an  house  of  sacri-  unto  me?  and  where  is  the  j)lace  of  my 
Hce.    For  now  have  1  chosen  and  sane-  rest?    Isa.  Ixvi.  1. 
tilled  this  house,  that  my  name  may  be  Howbeit,  the  JIostHigh  dwelleth  not 
there  for  ever;  and  mine  eyes  and  mine  in   temples   made  with  hands.     Acts 
lieart  shall  be    there    perpetually.     2  vii.  48. 
Chron.  vii.  12,  16. 

Observe,  first,  that  God  does  not  promise  to  "  dwell "  in  the 
temple.  He  says  he  had  chosen  it,  not  as  a  residence,  but  as  a 
"  house  of  sacrifice."  So  Solomon  understood  it,  for  he  says : 
"  But  who  is  able  to  build  him  an  house,  seeing  the  heaven  and 
heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  him  ?  who  am  I  then,  that  I 
should  build  him  an  house,  save  only  to  burn  sacrifice  before 
him?"^  The  promise  that  the  name,  heart,  and  eyes  of  Jehovah 
should  be  there,  meant  simjily  that  he  would  regard  the  house 
with  peculiar  favor,  and  manifest  his  power  and  grace  in  it. 
It  is  to  be  noted,  secondly,  that  the  whole  promise  was  condi- 
tional, as  is  exjilicitly  stated  in  the  following  verses :  "  But  if 
ye  turn  away,  and  forsake  my  statutes  and  my  commandments, 
which  I  have  set  before  you,  and  shall  go  and  serve  other  gods, 
and  worsliip  them ;  Then  w^ill  I  ])luck  them  up  by  the  roots 
out  of  my  land  which  I  have  given  them ;  and  this  house 
which  I  have  sanctified  for  my  name  will  I  cast  out  of  my 
sight,  and  will  make  it  to  be  a  proverb  and  a  byword  among 
all  nations."  ^  As  the  conditions  were  not  com})lied  with,  the 
jiromise  was  of  course  not  binding.  The  quotation  from  Acts 
merely  affirms  that  the  infinite,  omnipresent  Spirit  is  not 
restricted  to  any  one  locality,  or  conlined  to  any  single  place 
of  worship. 

Inhabits  eternity.  Dioells  roith  men. 

For  thus  saith  the  hiph  and  lofty  And  i  will  dwell  amoup  the  children 
One  that  iuhabitcth  eternity,  whose  of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  (Jod.  Ex. 
name  is  Holy.    Isa.  Ivii.  15.  xxix.  4.5. 

I  dwell  in  tlie  hiph  and  hi^]y  place, 
with  hiui  also  lliaf  is  of  a  ennlrile  and 
humble  spirit,  to  revive  tlw  spirit  of 
the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of 
the  Contrite  ones.    Isa.  Ivii.  15. 

»  2  Chron.  ii.  6. 

'  2  Chron.  vii.  19, 20.  Kimchi  and  Easlii  give  this  explanation  of  tho 
cjvae. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  103 

Inhabits  eternity.  Dtoells  with  men. 

Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If 
a  man  love  me,  he  w  ill  keep  my  words : 
and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we 
will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our 
abode  with  hira.     John  xiv.  23. 

God  hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them, 
and  walk  in  them:  and  I  will  be  their 
God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people.  2 
Cor.  vl.  16. 

And  1  heard  a  preat  voice  out  of  hea- 
ven saying,  Behold,  the  tabernacle  of 
God  is  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell 
with  them,  and  they  shall  be  his  peo- 
ple, and  God  himself  shall  be  with 
them,  and  be  their  God.    Kev.  xxi.  3. 

An  omnipresent  Being  may  do  both — dwell  in  eternity,  and 
with  men  too.  The  "  omnipresence  "  of  God  is  his  power  to 
develop  his  activity  everywhere  at  once.  Hence,  in  this  view, 
the  passages  present  no  difficulty. 

Dwells  in  heaven.  Dwells  in  Zion. 

Unto  thee  lift  I  up  mine  eyes,  O  thou        Sing    praises    to    the    Lord,  which 
that  dwellest  in  the  lieavens.    Psalm    dwelleth  in  Zion.    Ps.  ix.  11. 
exxiii.  1.  In  Saleia  also  is  his  tabernacle,  and 

his  dwelling-place  in  Zion.  Ps.  l.xxvi.2. 

To  a  mmd  capable  of  comprehending  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "  omnipresence"  these  texts  are  seen  to  be  in  perfect  har- 
mony. Most  simply,  yet  sublimely,  is  the  idea  expressed  by 
the  inspired  prophet :  "  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth  ?  saitli 
the  Lord."  ^ 

Position  God  assumes. 

One  Position.  A  different  one. 

There  will  I  sit  to  judgo  all  the  hea-  The  Lord  standeth  up  to  plead,  and 
then  round  about.    Joel  iii.  12.  standeth  to  judge  the  people.    Isa  iii. 

13. 

This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  trivial,  verbal  discrepancies 
which  certain  infidel  writers  palm  off  upon  their  careless  or 
ignorant  readers  as  cases  of  real  contradiction.  Of  course,  no 
person  of  candor  and  common  sense  would  think  of  interpreting 
the  language  literally.  The  figure  "  sit "  brings  graphicidly  to 
view  the  deliberatencss  and  impartiality  with  which  God  judges 
men;  the  term  "standeth"  represents  him  as  in  the  act  of 
executmg  his  judgments. 

*  Jcr.  xxiii.  24. 


104  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 


Law  of  God. 

A  law  of  liberty.  Tends  to  bondage. 

So  speak  ye,  and  so  do,  as  they  that  These  are  the  two  covenants;  the  one 
shall  be  judged  by  the  law  of  liberty,  from  the  mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth 
Jas.  ii.  12.  to  bondage.    Oal.  iv.  24. 

The  "  law  "  of  the  first,  is  not  identical  with  the  "  covenant " 
of  the  second  passage.  The  former  refers  to  the  norm  or  rule 
of  life  contained  in  the  gospel.  It  is  Christ's  law  of  love, 
purity,  and  liberty,  as  embodied  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Alford :  "  It  is  the  law  of  om*  liberty,  not  as  in  contrast  with 
a  former  law  of  bondage,  but  as  viewed  on  the  side  of  its  being 
the  law  of  the  new  life  and  birth,  with  all  its  spontaneous  and 
free  development  of  obedience." 

On  the  contrary,  the  "  covenant "  is  the  Mosaic  law,  with  its 

complicated  and  burdensome  ritual.     This  gendered  to  bondage. 

EUicott  comments  thus :   " '  Bearing   children  unto   bondage,' 

i.e.  to  pass  under  and  to  inherit  the  lot  of  bondage."     Peter 

terms  it  a  "  yoke,"  which  "  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were 

able  to  bear."^     As,  therefore,  the  two  texts  refer  to  entirely 

different  things,  there  is  no  collision. 

Law  is  perfect.  It  perfected  nothing. 

r.ut  whoso  looketh  into  the  perfect  Tor  the  law  made  nothing  perfect, 
law  of  liberty.    Jas.  i.  25  but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  d«d. 

Heb.  vii.  19. 

As  in  the  preceding  instance,  these  texts  refer  to  different 

things  —  the  former  to  the  Christian,  the  latter  to  the  Mosaic, 

law.     Besides,  were  the  same  law  intended  in  both  cases,  it 

would  by  no  means  follow  that  a  perfect  law  necessarily  secures 

perfect  obedience. 

Observance  tends  to  life.  Tends  to  death. 

Ve  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  Because  they  had  not  executed  my 
and  my  judgments:  which  if  a  man  do,  judgments,  but  had  despised  my  stat- 
he  shall  live  in  them:  I  am  the  Lokd.  utes,  and  had  pulluted  my  sabbaths, 
Lev.  xviii.  6  and  their  eyes  were  aftor  their  fathers' 

For  Muses  describeth  the  righteous-  idols.  Wherefore  I  gave  them  also 
ness  which  is  of  the  law.  That  the  man  statutes  tliti/  ircrf  not  good,  and  judg- 
which  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  ments  whereby  the)  should  not  live; 
them.     Kum.  X.  5.  and  I  polluted  them  in  their  own  gifts, 

in  that  tliey  caused  to  jiass  thnuigh 
the  fin:  all  that  openeth  the  wonil),  tliat 
I  might  make  them  desolate,  to  the  end 
that  they  might  know  that  1  am  the 
Lord.    Ezek.  xx.  24-26.  • 

•  Acta  XV.  10. 


DOCTEINAL   DISCEEPANCIES.  105 

Observance  tends  to  life.  Tends  to  death. 

And  the  commandment,  which  iras 
ordained  to  lifp,  I  found  to  be  unto 
deatli.    Kom.  vii.  10. 

If  there  had  been  a  law  {riven  which 
could  have  given  life,  verily  rifjhteous- 
ness  should  have  been  by  the  law.  O al. 
iii.  21. 

The  first  two  texts  affirm  the  general  principle  that  obedience 
secures  felicity,  but  do  not  say  that  any  human  being  renders 
this  obedience,  in  the  full  and  perfect  sense.  The  words,  "  if 
a  man  do,"  are  merely  hypothetical. 

Ezekicl's  words,  taken  in  their  connection,  are  explained  by 
Kimchi  ^  in  the  following  manner :  As  the  Israelites  did  not 
choose  to  observe  the  comparatively  mild  statutes  of  God 
whereby  they  might  have  lived  happily,  he  substituted  other 
statutes,  so  different  from  the  first  as  to  render  it  imjDOSsible  to 
live  under  them,  by  subjecting  that  disobedient  people  to  those 
enemies  who  instituted  violent  and  rigorous  laws  against  them. 
That  is,  the  ''  statutes  not  good  "  were  not  the  Mosaic  statutes, 
but  those  of  heathen  tyrants  and  oppressors,  to  whom,  from 
time  to  time,  God  delivered  the  Jews  in  punishment  of  their 
sms. 

The  commandment  which  was  fitted  and  intended  to  secure 
life,  'Saul,  through  transgression,  found  to  result  in  death.  Our 
criminal  law,  which  makes  hanging  the  penalty  of  the  crime  of 
murder,  is  designed  for  the  preservation  of  life.  But  the 
■  murderer  who  is  tried,  convicted,  and  executed  under  that  law 
finds  it  a  law  "  unto  death." 

The  quotation  from  Galatians  may  be  paraphrased  thus : 
"If  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could,"  —  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, "  which  could,"  —  amid  the  limitations,  frailties, 
and  imperfect  obedience  of  humanity,  "  have  given  life."  The 
law  requires  perfect  obedience,  in  order  to  life.  But  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that  man  does  not,  and  will  not,  render  this 
obedience ;  hence  the  law  cannot  give  life  to  him.     No  law,  as 

'  Menassch  ben  Israel's  Conciliator,  Vol.  i.  p.  229. 
-  See  further,  pp.  77,  78,  of  present  work. 


106  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

such,  can  give  life  to  sinners.  In  brief,  we  may  say  that  the 
first  series  of  texts  implies  that  the  design  and  normal  tendency 
of  the  law  is  life ;  the  last,  that,  through  man's  imperfection  and 
disobedience,  the  actual  result  is  death.  Hence,  there  is  clearly 
no  discrepancy. 

II.     CHRIST.— His  JDivinitf/. 

Christ  is  God.  He  is  man. 

In  the  bejrinninff  was  the  "Word,  and        But  now  ve  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man 
the  Word  was  witli  God,  and  the  Word    tliat  hath  told  you  the  triitli,  which  I 
was  God.    And  the  Word   was  made    have  heard  of  God.    Jolin  viii,  4i). 
flesh,   and   dwelt   among   us.    John  i.        Because  he  hath  apimintetl  a  day  in 
1.  14-  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in 

ButnntotheSon/;fi.sa«7/i,  Thy  throne,  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he 
O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.    lleb.  i.  8.    hath  ordained.    Acts  xvii.  31. 

One  mediator  between  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus.    1  Tim.  ii.  5. 

Christ  is  here  presented  in  two  aspects  —  in  his  divine 
nature,  by  virtue  of  which  he  was  God,  and  in  his  human 
nature,  in  respect  of  which  he  was  man.  On  the  one  hand,  he 
was  "  God,  in  substance  and  essence" ;^  on  the  other,  he  was 
man,  as  having  taken  upon  him  human  nature. 

One  with  the  Father.  Distinct  from  him. 

I  and  my  Father  are  one.    John  x.  30.        I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and 

am  come  into  the  world  :  again,  I  leave 
the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father.  John 
xvi.  28. 

The  "  oneness  "  of  the  first  text  is  unity  of  essence,  attributes, 
and  will,  but  not  unity  of  person.  This  is  made  clear  in  our 
Saviour's  prayer  for  his  disciples :  "  That  they  may  be  one, 
even  as  we  are  one."^  Here  the  j^etition  is,  not  that  the  dis- 
ciples might  lose  their  individual  existence  and  be  merged  in 
one  corjx)real  organism,  but  that,  in  their  great  work,  they 
might  be  "  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul."  Again,  we  read : 
"  I  liave  planted,  Apollos  watered  ;  . . .  Now,  he  that  planteth 
and  lie  that  watcrcth  are  one."  ^  Not  identity  of  person,  but 
of  purpose,  is  here  intended.  The  underlying  principle  which 
harmonizes  the  two  foregoing  texts  is  therefore  the  following: 
Unity  of  essence  and  attributes,  with  distinctions  of  jierson. 

'  So  Alford,  on  John  i.  1.  « John  xvii.  22.  M  Cor.  iii.  C,  8. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  107 

Alford :  "  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one  —  one  in  essence, 
primarily,  but  therefore  also  one  in  working  and  power  and  in 
will ;  ...  not  personally  one,  but  essentially.'^ 

Equal  to  the  Father.  Inferior  to  Mm. 

Christ  Jesus :  who,  beinj;  in  the  form  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  rejoice,  be- 
ef God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  cause  I  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father:  for 
equal  with  (Jod.    Philip,  ii.  5,  6.  my  Father  is   greater  than   1.    John 

After  (,'hrist.     For  in  him  dwelleth     xiv.  28. 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Ciodhead  bodily. 
Col.  ii.  8,  9. 

The  words  "  greater  than  I "  do  not  assert  Christ's  inferiority 
in  respect  to  essence.  Barnes :  "  The  object  of  Jesus  here  is 
not  to  compare  his  own  nature  with  that  of  the  Father,  but  his 
condition.  Ye  woidd  rejoice  that  I  am  to  leave  this  state  of 
suffering  and  humiliation,  and  resume  that  glory  which  I  had 
with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  You  ought  to  rejoice 
at  my  exaltation  to  bliss  and  glory  with  the  Father." 

Calvin :  "  Clu'ist  does  not  here  compare  the  divinity  of  the 
Father  with  his  own,  neither  his  own  human  nature  with  the 
divine  essence  of  the  Father,  but  rather  his  present  state  with 
that  celestial  glory  to  which  he  must  shortly  be  received." 

In  this  interpretation  concur  Luther,  Cocceius,  DeWette, 
Tholuck,  Stuart,  and  Alford,  with  other  critics  and  com- 
mentators." ^  This  exposition  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the 
context. 

Tlie  Son  is  God.  The  Father  the  only  God. 

The  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
purchased  with  his  own  blood.  Acts  might  know  thea  the  only  true  God. 
XX.  28.  John  xvii.  3. 

Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were 
not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  con- 
versation received  by  tradition  from 
vour  fathers;  but  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ.    1  Pot.  i.  18,  19. 

In  respect  to  the  quotation  from  Acts,  there  are  different 
readings.     Some  critics  read  "  thcos,"    God  ;  others,  "  kurios,'" 

'  Says  an  eminent  Unitarian  divine,  Rev.  Dr.  E.  H.  Sears:  "  For  a  mor- 
tal man,  or  for  an  ardianf^el  as  well,  to  announce  that  God  is  irrcatcr  tlian 
he  is,  were  profane  c;;oism.  But  for  Jesus  speaking  as  tlic  Word  to  say, 
'  my  Father  is  yreatcr  than  I,'  is  to  say  only  that  God  as  absolute,  is  more 
than  God  revealed."  —  Heart  of  Christ,  Appendix,  p.  550. 


108  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Lord.  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Mill,  and  others  adopt  the  former ; 
Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Meyer,  Davidson,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Green,  and  Hackett  a])parently,  adopt  the  latter  reading.  If 
we  read  "  the  church  of  the  Lord"  the  passage  will  have  no 
direct  bearing  upon  the  point  under  discussion.  On  the  words, 
"  the  only  true  God,"  Barnes  observes :  "  The  only  God  in  op- 
j)Osition  to  all  false  gods.  What  is  said  here  is  in  opposition  to 
idols,  not  to  Jesus  himself,  who,  in  1  John  v.  20,  is  called  '  the 
true  God  and  eternal  life.' " 

Alford :  "  The  very  juxtaposition  of  Jesus  Christ  here  with 
the  Father,  and  the  knowledge  of  both  being  defined  to  be 
eternal  life,  is  a  proof  by  implication  of  the  Godhead  of  the 
former.  The  knowledge  of  God  and  a  creature  could  not  be 
eternal  life,  and  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  would  be  incon- 
ceivable." 

Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Son  of  man. 

Say  ye  of  liim,  whom  tlie  Father  liath  When  Josus  came  into  the  coasts  of 

sanctilicd,   and   sent    into    the  world,  t'aesaroa  I'liilippi,  lie  asked  his  disci- 

Tliou  blasplieniost;    because  I  said,  I  pics  sayinp,  Whom  do  men  say  tliat  I 

am  the  Son  of  God  y    Jolai  x.  30.  the  .-on  of  man  am?    Ulatt.  xvi.  13. 

And   riiilip   .'said,   If  thou   belipvpst  Kor  the  Son  of  tiian  is  come  to  seek 

with  all  thino  heart,  thou  maycst.    And  and    to    save    that    which    was    lost, 

he  answered  and   said,  I  believe  that  Luke  xix.  10. 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sou  of  God.    Acts 
viii.  37.1 

The  term  "  Son  of  God,"  is  to  be  regarded  as  descriptive  of 
Jesus,  in  his  divine  nature ;  "  Son  of  man,"  in  his  human 
nature.  The  latter  term,  says  Alford,  is  "  the  name  by  which 
the  Lord  ordinarily  in  one  pregnant  word,  designates  himself  as 
the  Messiah —  the  So7i  of  God  manifested  in  the  flesh  of  man 
—  the  second  Adam.  And  to  it  belong  all  tliose  conditions 
of  humiliation,  suffering,  and  exaltation,  which  it  behooves  the 
Son  of  man  to  go  through."  From  the  following  passage, "  Here- 
after shall  the  Son  of  man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power 
of  God.    Then  .said  they  all,  Art  thou  then  tlio  Son  of  God?"'* 

'  Tills  verse  is  retained  by  Bomemann,  Wordsworth,  and  the  Arabic, 
A  rmcnian,  Syriac,  and  Vulgate  versions.  It  is  omitted  by  Alford,  Ilackctt, 
Merer,  Tischcndorr,  and  most  other  modern  iriiics. 

-•  Luke  xxii.  00,  70. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  109 

it  would  appear  that  the  Jews  took  the  two  expressions,  "  Son 
of  God "  and  "  Son  of  man,"  as  nearly  or  quite  synonymous, 
both  denoting  tho  long-expected  IMessiah. 

The  only  Son  of  God.  Men  also  sons  of  God. 

The  only  bpfrotten  Son,  which  is  in  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit 

the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de-  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  (Jod.    Rom. 

clared  hi/n.    Jolin  i.  18.  viii.  14. 

In  this  was  manifested  the  love  of  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God. 

God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent  1  John  iii.  2. 
his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world, 
that  we  might  live  through  him.     1 
John  iv.  9. 

Observe  that  the  first  two  texts  do  not  assert  that  Jesus  is 
the  "  only,"  but  the  "  only  begotten,"  Son  of  God  ;  that  is,  he 
is  the  only  being  who  sustains  that  peculiar  relation  to  the 
Father,  which  is  implied  in  the  term  "  begotten." 

One  class  of  theologians  hold  that,  while  men  may  become 
sons  of  God  by  adoption,^  Jesus  is  son  by  generation,  and  con- 
sequent participation  in  the  divine  essence  and  attributes. 
Such  was  the  view  of  the  Nicene  trinitarians.^  By  analogical 
reasoning,  they  maintained  that,  as  the  human  son  participates 
in  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  human  father,  the  same  holds 
true  of  the  Divine  Son  in  relation  to  the  Divine  Father.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  held  by  many  theologians  at  the  present  day, 
Christ  is  distinctively  "  the  Son  of  God,"  —  or,  in  the  language 
of  Dr.  Ilodge,^  "  the  only  person  in  the  universe  to  whom  the 
word  can  be  applied  in  its  full  sense,  as  expressing  sameness  of 
essence." 

There  is  another  explanation  of  the  term,  "  Son  of  God," 
which  is  given  by  Dr.  Watts,*  Prof.  Stuart,"  Prof.  Park,  and 
others.  They  hold  that  Christ  bears  this  appellation  because, 
in  respect  to  his  human  nature,  he  is  derived  from  God ;  also 
because  of  the  elevated  dignity  which  was  conferred  on  him 

iRom.  viii.  15,  16. 

'  Shedd,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  i.  331. 

3  Theology,  i.  474.    Compare  Dr.  Miller's  Letters  on  Eternal  Sonship, 
pp.  37-40. 
<  See  Works,  v.  •23-2-258  (edition  in  7  vols.). 
''  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller  on  Eternal  Generation,  Letter  viii. 
10 


110  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

as  the  Messiah,  —  his  resurrection  from  "the  dead  being  the 
.commencement  of  his  elevation  to  supreme  dignity,  and  being, 
moreover,  the  beginning  of  a  new  life  ;  that  is,  something  analo- 
gous to  birth  or  generation.  The  last-named  theologian^ 
adduces  the  additional  reason  that  Christ  was  greatly  beloved 
of  the  Father. 

On  either  of  the  above  hypotheses,  the  fact  that  men  are 
occasionally  styled  "  sons  of  God,"  while  Jesus  is  denominated 
"  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,"  occasions  no  difficulty,  since 
the  two  appellations  are  respectively  used  with  very  different 
significations. 

Omnipotence. 

Had  all  power.  Was  not  almightij. 

AndJesus  camp  and  spake  unto  them,  To  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  my 
sayinfj,  All  i)o\v('r  is  given  unto  me  in  left,  is  not  mine  to  givo,  but  it  shall  be 
heaven  and  in  earth.     Matt,  xxviii   18     yiren  to  thi-m  for  whom  it  is  prepared 

The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath    of  my  Father.    Matt.  xx.  23. 
piven  all  things  into  his  hand.    John        And  he  could  there   do  no  miphty 
iii.  35.  work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hand  upon 

a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them.    Mark 
vi.  5. 

Matt.  XX.  23  is  rendered  by  Grotius,  Chrysostom,  Clarke, 
Barnes,  and  others  thus :  "  is  not  mine  to  give,  except  to  those 
for  whom,"  etc.  With  this  the  Syriac  Peshito  precisely  agrees. 
The  italics  in  the  common  version  of  this  text  pervert  the 
meanmg.  The  real  sense  is :  "  It  is  not  fitting  that  I  should 
bestow  it  upon  others."  The  question  is  not  one  of  power  at 
all,  but  of  fitness. 

Mark  vi.  5  implies  not  physical  but  moral  impossibility.  It 
was  not  lack  of  power  which  prevented  his  working  miracles 
at  Nazareth ;  but,  as  the  next  verse  shows,  the  "  unbelief  "  of 
the  people  was  the  reason  why  it  was  inconsistent  for  him,  or 
why  he  "  could  not "  thus  work.  So  one  often  says  of  a  thing 
which  lie  deemed  improper,  or  incompatible  with  his  purjjoses, 
"  I  could  not  do  it." 

Alford :  "  The  want  of  ahil'Uy  is  not  absolute,  but  relative. 
The  same  voice  which  could  still  the  tempest,  could  anywhere 

'  MS.  Lectures. 


DOCTEINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  Ill 

and  under  any  circumstances  have  commanded  diseases  to 
obey ;  but  in  most  cases  of  human  infirmity,  it  was  our  Lord's 
practice  to  require  faith  in  tlie  recipient  of  aid,  and  that  being 
wanting,  the  help  could  not  be  given." 

Oinniscience. 

Knew  all  things.  Ignorant  of  some  things. 

But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  And  seeing  a  fifr  tree  afar  off  havinp; 
unto  them,  because  he  knew  all  men,  leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might  liiici 
and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  any  thing  thereon  :  and  when  he  came 
of  mau  :  for  he  knew  wliat  was  iu  man.  to  it,  he  found  nothing  hut  leaves ;  for 
John  ii.  24,  25.  the  time  of  tigs  was  not  net.  Mark  xi.l3. 

Now  are  we  sure  that  thou  knowest  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  know- 
all  tilings,  and  needest  not  that  any  eth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which 
man  should  ask  thee.    John  xvi.  30.         are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 

And  ho  said  unto   him.  Lord,  thou    Father.     Mark  xiii.  32. 
knowest  all  things;  thou  knowest  that        And  said.  Where  have  ye  laid  him? 
1  love  thee.    John  xxi.  17.  They  said  unto  him,  Lord,  come  and 

Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treas-    see.    John  xi.  34. 
ures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.    Col.        Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooved 
ii  3.  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren. 

Heb.  ii.  17. 

Ob\'iously,  some  passages  represent  Christ  in  the  aspect  of 
his  Godhead,  while  others  speak  of  him  simply  in  his  human 
nature,  —  as  a  man.  When  he  is  spoken  of  as  "  increasing  iu 
wisdom  and  stature,"  ^  the  humanity  is  placed  in  the  foreground ; 
when  he  claims  to  have  existed  "  before  Abraham  was,"  ^  he 
speaks  iu  his  inherent  divinity.  As  another  has  ■  remarked : 
"  His  infancy  and  childhood  were  no  mere  pretence,  but  the 
divine  personality  was  in  him  carried  through  these  states  of 
weakness  and  inexperience,  and  gathered  romid  itself  the 
ordinary  accessions  and  experiences  of  the  sons  of  men."  In 
the  person  of  Christ,  the  Divinity  voluntarily  entered  into,  and 
took  upon  itself,  the  conditions  and  limitations  of  humanity. 

Ewald  ^  observes :  "  Even  the  highest  divine  power,  when  it 
veils  itself  in  mortal  body,  and  appears  in  definite  time,  finds, 
in  this  body  and  this  time,  its  limits."  To  nearly  the  same 
purport,  Colenso  *  says :  "  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
most  entire  and  sincere  belief  in  our  Lord's  divinity,  to  hold, 
as  many  do,  that  when  he  vouchsafed  to  become  a  '  Son  of 

1  Luke  ii.  52.  ^  john  viii.  58  ^  Life  of  Christ,  p.  840. 

*  On  Pentatciu-h,  Part  i.  p.  xxxi. 


112  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

man,'  he  took  our  nature  fully,  and  voluntarily  entered  into  all 
the  conditions  of  humanity,  and  among  others,  into  that  which 
makes  our  growth  in  all  ordinary  knowledge  gradual  and 
limited." 

The  divinity  and  humanity  were,  as  we  believe,  so  united 
that  they  exerted  a  reciprocal  influence,  each  modifying  the 
action  of  the  other.  If  it  be  said  that  such  a  union  is  improb- 
able, we  reply  that  there  is  an  equal,  antecedent  improbability 
that  a  spirit,  being  immaterial,  would  be  united  with  a  body 
composed  of  matter,  so  as  to  form  one  personality,  one  ego ; 
yet  we  know  that  this  actually  occurs  in  the  case  of  man. 

In  consequence  of  the  vmion  above  mentioned,  our  Saviour 
could  say  "  I "  of  either  component  of  his  nature  —  the  divine 
or  the  human.  Sometimes  he  spoke  in  one  relation,  sometimes 
in  the  other,  according  as  circumstances  or  the  exigencies  of 
discourse  required.^  In  a  somewhat  analogous  way,  a  man 
says,  "  /rejoice  at  it,"  and,  at  another  time,  "  /weigh  so  much." 
In  the  first  instance,  the  "  I "  refers  exclusively  to  the  soul ;  in 
the  second,  to  the  body.  The  soul  rejoices,  the  body  weighs. 
Yet  the  pronoun  "  I "  is  applied  indifferently  to  either.  We 
cannot  but  think  that  the  principle  underlying  this  mode  of 
conception  and  speech,  indicates  a  simple  and  correct  interpre- 
tation of  the  second  series  of  texts  quoted  above.  They  bring 
Christ  before  our  minds  in  his  lower  and  subordinate  relations, 
in  the  humiliation,  the  "emptying"  himself  of  his  Godlike 
majesty  and  visible  glories,  wliich  he  voluntarily  midertook  and 
endured.^ 

As  to  the  case  of  the  fig-tree,  Jesus  wished  to  teach  his  dis- 

'  Dr.  Payson,  on  his  death-bed,  said,  in  substance,  to  his  friends,  "  I  suffer 
as  much  pain,  as  if  every  l)one  were  underfjoinf;  dislocation ;  "  and,  in  the 
same  breath,  "  I  am  perfectly,  perfectly  happy  and  peaceful  —  more  happy 
than  I  can  possibly  express  to  you."  That  is,  ha  was  at  the  same  womeut 
intenschj  happij,  and  sufferiiiff  intensely.  Yet  this  involved  no  contiadic- 
tion.  The  lan};ua};c  had  respect  to  dilTerent  relations,  or  to  dillcrent 
departments  of  beinji.     h>ce  Payson's  Memoir,  by  Cummin^s,  p.  470. 

''  See  I'Lil.  ii.  7,  8;  Greek  iavrhv  iKfvwat,  oii/jtied  Himself. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  113 

ciples  an  important  lesson.  This  was  enforced  upon  their 
minds  by  his  suddenly  blighting  the  tree.  The  foliage  of  the 
tree  was  in  such  a  state  that  it  was  antecedently  probable  that 
there  was  fruit  also.  Jesus  acted  "  accordmg  to  the  appearance 
of  things ;  being  a  man  as  well  as  divine  he  acted,  of  course, 
as  men  do  act  in  such  circumstances." 

As  to  Mark  xiii.  32,  Augustme  says,  "  He  did  not  know  so 
that  he  might  at  that  time  disclose  to  the  disciples."  He  adds 
elsewhere, ''  Though  as  God  he  could  not  be  ignorant  of  any 
tiling,  yet  his  human  vmderstanding  did  not  know  it." 

Lightfoot,  on  the  passage  :  "  It  is  not  revealed  to  him  from 
the  Father  to  reveal  to  the  church." 

"Wordsworth,  on  the  same  text :  "  It  is  true  that  the  Son,  as 
Son,  knoweth  not  the  day  of  judgment,  because  the  Father 
'  hath  put  the  times  and  seasons  in  his  own  power,'  and  the 
Father  will  reveal  them  when  he  thinks  meet ;  and  therefore 
it  is  no  part  of  the  office  of  the  Son  to  know,  that  is,  to  deter- 
mine and  declare  the  day  of  judgment." 

Some  of  the  Lutheran  commentators  say  that  our  Lord  knew 
"in  respect  to  possession,  but  not  in  respect  to  use."  That  is, 
he  might  possess  but  not  use  this  knowledge. 

Waterland : '  "  He  denies  the  knowledge  of  the  day  of 
judgment,  but  in'  respect  of  his  human  nature ;  in  which  respect 
also  he  is  said  to  have  increased  in  wisdom,  Luke  ii.  52 ;  the 
divine  Logos  having,  with  the  human  nature,  assumed  the 
ignorance  and  other  infirmities  proper  to  it." 

Schaff,  in  Lange,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  3G:  "  Christ  could,  of  course, 
not  lay  aside,  in  the  incarnation,  the  metaphysical  attributes  of 
liis  divine  nature,  such  as  eternity ;  but  he  could,  by  an  act  of 
his  will,  limit  his  attributes  of  power  and  his  knowledge,  and 
refrain  from  their  use  as  far  as  it  was  necessary  for  his 
humiliation." 

Alford :  "  In  the  course  of  humiliation  undertaken  by  the 
Son,  in  which  he  increased  in  wisdom  (Luke  ii.  52),  learned 

»  Works,  ii.  1C3  (Oxford  edition,  1856). 
10* 


114  DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 

obedience  (Ileb.  v.  8),  uttered   desires   in   prayer   (Luke  vi. 
12,  etc.)  — this  matter  was  hidden  from  him." 

O  m  nipresencc. 

Evenjtohere  present.  Not  omnipresent. 

For  where  two  or  thrpe  are  gathered  For  ye  have  the  poor  always  with 
together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  iu  the  you ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always.  Matt, 
midst  of  them.    Matt,  xviii.  20.  xxvi.  11. 

Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  Jesus  himself  drew  near,  and  went 
the  end  of  the  world.    Matt,  xxviii.  20.    with  them.    Luke  xxiv.  15. 

Jesus  had  conveyed  himself  away,  a 
multitude  being  in  that  place.  John 
V.  13. 

And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  I 
was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  be- 
lieve ;  nevertheless,  let  us  go  unto  uim. 
John  xi.  15. 

The  first  texts  refer  to  his  spiritual  presence  with  his  people ; 
the  second  series  relates  to  his  visible  presence,  in  the  body. 
Paul,  in  Col.  ii.  5,  employs  language  of  a  quite  sinular  import. 

Holiness. 

He  is  hoi]/.  Is  sin. 

He  had  done  no  violence,  neither  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for 
vax  any  deceit  in  his  mouth.  Isa.  us,  who  knew  no  sin :  that  we  might 
Jiii.  9.  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 

In  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,    liim.    2  Cor.  v.  21. 
yet  without  sin.    Heb.  iv.  15. 

Holy,   harmless,   undefiled,  separate 
from  sinners.    Heb.  vii.  26. 

The  word  "sin,"  in  the  latter  text,  doubtless  means  "sin- 
offering."  '  In  this  view  concur  Augustine,  Ambrose,  Erasmus, 
Lightfoot,  Macknight,  Stuart,  Whitby,  and  many  other  com- 
mentators. 

Chrysostom  says,  "  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  who  was  righteous- 
ness itself,  he  hath  made  sin ;  that  is,  hath  suffered  to  be 
condemned  as  a  sinner,  to  die  as  a  person  accursed. 

De  Wette  and  Aiford  give  the  passage  a  somewhat  different 

>  Schleusncr,  Lexicon  to  the  LXX,  defines  the  orijrinal  Greek  term, 
aixapria,  as  "pcccatum,  ctiam  poena  pcccati,  et  sacrilicium  piacalare." 
IJicl  (jives,  also,  "  sacrificinm  pro  peecato."  Examples  of  the  sccondaiy 
sijjnilication  arc  Ezck  xliii.  'J'i;  xliv.  29;  xlv.  22  Acconlinjr  to  Geseniiis, 
the  corrcsponiJinij  Hebrew  term  inxiifl,  with  two  kindred  words,  means 
both  sin  and  sin-offerinf/.  Fucrstsays  nsisn  denotes  sin  in  1  Sam.  x.\  1; 
Psalm  lix.  4;  Job  xiii.  23;  and  sin-offiriii;/  in  Ex.  xxix.  14;  Lev.  iv.  8. 
The  Greek  word  mentioned  above  has  clearly  its  secondary  or  Ilcbraistic 
sense  in  2  Cor.  v.  21. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  115 

turn,  thus  :  Sin,  i.e.  Christ  on  the  cross  was  the  representative 
of  sin  —  of  the  sin  of  the  world. 

With  a  singular  obliquity  of  mind  and  heart,  F.  "W.  New- 
man ^  says  of  our  Saviour,  as  represented  in  the  Gospels,  "  I 
almost  doubt  whether,  if  one  wished  to  draw  the  character  of  a 
vain  and  vacillating  pretender,  it  would  be  possible  to  draw 
anything  more  to  the  purpose  than  this,"  and  expresses  his  '•  con- 
viction," that  "  in  consistency  of  goodness  Jesus  fell  far  below 
vast  numbers  of  his  unhonored  disciples." 

TVliat  must  be  our  estimate  of  a  man  who  can  thus  coolly 
ignore  the  verdict  of  the  ages,  and  wantonly  revolt  the  moral 
sense  of  Christendom,  by  suffering  liis  pen  to  trace  such  atro- 
cious sentiments  as  these  ? 

Blessed.  A  curse. 

God  hath  blessed  thee  for  ever.    Ps.       Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
xlv.  2.  curse  of  the  law,  beiug  made  a  curse 

All  nations  shall  call  him  blessed,    for  us :  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  ?.<  every 
Ps.  Ixxii.  17.  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.    Gal.iii.13. 

Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain 
to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wis- 
dom, and  strength,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  blessing.    Rev.  v.  12. 

Luther  and  some  other  commentators,  taking  the  language 
in  Galatians  too  literally,  have  supposed  that  by  some  mysterious 
transference  of  human  guilt  to  Christ,  he  actually  became  a 
sinner.  This  interpretation  is,  however,  vmcalled  for,  and  re- 
pugnant to  our  feelings. 

Conybeare  renders  :  "  He  became  accursed  for  our  sakes." 

EUicott  and  Meyer  tliink  that  the  abstract  word  "  katara," 
curse,  is  chosen  instead  of  the  concrete,  to  "  express  with  more 
force  the  completeness  of  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  made 
to' the  law." 

]3arnes :  "  Jesus  was  subjected  to  what  was  regarded  as  an 
accursed  death.  He  was  treated  in  his  death  as  if  he  had  been 
a  criminal." 

As  Christ  suffered  in  the  stead  of  those  upon  whom  the 
curse  properly  devolved,  he  might  be  styled  "  accursed,"  or,  in 
the  sense  just  explained,  a  '*  curse  "  for  us. 

^  Phases  of  Faith,  chap.  vii.  (third  edition). 


116  DISCREPANCIES    OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Mercy. 

Ee  is  merciful.  Unmerciful. 

For  the  Son  of  man  is  not  come  to  Fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from  the  face 
destroy  men's  lives  but  to  save  them,  of  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and 
Luke  ix.  56.  from  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb.     Kev. 

For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek    vi.  16. 
and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.    Luke        Called  Faithful    and   True,   and    in 
xix.  10.  righteousness  he  doth  judge  and  make 

war.    Kev.  xix.  11. 

And  he  %cas  clothed  with  a  vesture 
dipped  in  blood,  aud  hi.s  name  is  called 
The  Word  of  God.    Rev.  xix  13. 

And  out  of  his  mouth  goeth  a  sharp 
sword,  that  with  it  he  should  smite  the 
nations :  and  he  shall  rule  them  with  a 
rod  of  iron;  and  he  treadeth  the  wine- 
press of  the  fierceness  and  wrath  of 
Almighty  God.    Kev.  xix.  15. 

De  Wette  ^  says  that  these  latter  passages  "  glow  with  the 
spirit  of  Messianic  revenge."  The  apparent  difficulty  is  easily 
obviated.  Just  in  proiiortion  as  any  being  loves  holiness,  in 
that  proportion  will  he  hate  sin.  Christ,  being  perfectly  holy, 
being  also  a  wise  and  benevolent  sovereign,  cannot  but  be  most 
powerfully  impelled  to  reward  virtue,  and  to  punish  and  exter- 
minate vice.  The  texts  to  which  exception  is  taken,  are  vivid, 
figurative  expressions  of  the  infinitely  wise,  just,  and  righteous 
principles  which  Christ  displays  in  the  administration  of  his 
kingdom. 

Spares  bruised  reed.  Wields  iron  sceptre. 

A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of 

the  smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench,  iron :  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 

Isa.  xlii.  3.  like  a  potter's  vessel.    I's.  ii.  9. 

These  passages  present  the  IMessiah  in  a  twofold  attitude ; 
toward  the  penitent  and  humble,  and  toward  the  proud  and 
rebellious.  The  "rod  of  iron"  indicates  the  strength  and 
ciTishing  force  with  wliich  he  would  chastise  the  revolters  ;  the 
first  text  brings  to  view  the  tender  com^^assion  which  he  would 
exercise  toward  the  dejected  and  helpless.  The  same  mouth 
which  breathed  the  tender  words,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
labor  and  are  hoavy-ladcn,"  ^  could,  without  any  incongruity, 
thunder  at  those  scoffing  hypocrites,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
the  terrible  denunciation,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers, 
how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell."'* 

1  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  p.  876.  »  Matt.  xi.  28.  »  Matt.  xxui.  83. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  117 

Courage  and  Fortitude. 

Shrunk  at  death.  Met  it  composedly. 

Now  is  my  Foiil  troubled;  and  what       He  humbled  himself,  and  became  obe- 
shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this    dient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
hour:  but  for  this  cause  came  I  unto    cross.    I'hilip.  ii.  8. 
this  hour.     John  xii.  27. 

Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when 
he  had  oftV-red  up  prayers  and  suppli- 
cations with  strong  crying  and  tears 
inito  him  that  was  able  to  save  him 
from  death,  and  was  heard  in  that  he 
feared.     Ueb.  v.  7. 

Theopliylact.  Grotius,  Tholuck,  Barnes,  and  others,  take  the 
Saviour's  words  interrogatively,  thus  :  "  Shall  I  say,  Father, 
save  me  from  this  hour  ?"  This  interpretation  makes  good 
sense,  and  accords  well  with  the  context. 

Heb.  V.  7  may  be  rendered  :  "  He  was  heard  on  account  of 
his  pious  resignation,"  —  or,  "  because  of  his  reverence."  So, 
in  substance,  Alford,  Barnes,  Bleek,  Conybeare,  Delitzsch, 
Luther,  Eobinson,  Tyndale,  and  all  the  Greek  commentators. 

Prof.  Stuart,  foUowuig  in  substance  the  common  version, 
maintains  that  it  was  not  death  which  Christ  "  feared " ;  he 
di-eaded  lest  he  should  sink  under  the  agony  of  being  deserted 
by  .his  Father.  In  tliis  respect  he  was  "heard,"  and  received 
divine  aid.^     Either  interpretation  dispels  the  difficulty. 

Veracity. 

His  untnes.9  true.  Not  ti~ue. 

Though  I  hear  record  of  myself,  yet       If  I  bear  witness  of  myself  my  wit- 
my  record  is  true:  for  I  know  whence    ness  is  not  true.    John  v.31. 
1  came  and  whither  I  go.    John  viii.  14. 

Grotius  takes  the  first  passage  as  a  mere  hypothesis,  "  even 
though  I  should  bear  witness  of  myself,"  etc.  Bishop  Pearce, 
Wakefield,  and  others  render  the  second  text  thus :  "  If  I  bear 
witness  of  myself,  is  not  my  witness  true  ?  "  Should  the  com- 
mon version  be  retained,  the  meaning  is,  If  I  alone  bear  witness 
of  myself."  The  INIosaic  law  recjuired  at  least  two  witnesses.^ 
Jesus  therefore  admits  that  his  own 'testimony  alone  would  not 
be  "  true  "  ;  that  is,  would  not  be  regarded  as  legal  proof;  hence 
he  proceeds  to  adduce  the  corroborative  testimony  of  another. 

'  Luke  xxii.  43.  =  Deut.  xix.  15. 


118  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

Andrew  Fuller  :  ^  "  The  first  passage  sets  forth  his  testimony 
as  it  was  in  itself ;  the  second  as  it  was  in  the  account  of 
men.  . . .  Admitting  their  laws  or  rules  of  evidence,  his  testi- 
mony would  not  have  been  credible ;  and  therefore  in  the 
verses  following  he  appeals  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
the  works  which  he  had  wrought  in  his  Father's  name,  which 
amounted  to  a  testimony  from  the  Father." 

Alford :  The  assertion  in  chapter  v.  was,  that  his  own  un- 
supported witness  {supposing  that  possible)  would  not  be  trust- 
worthy, but  that  his  testimony  was  supported  by,  and  in  fact 
coincident  with,  that  of  the  Father.  The  very  same  Argument 
is  used  in  chapter  viii.,  but  the  other  side  of  it  presented  to  us. 
He  does  witness  of  himself,  because  his  testimony  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Father  who  loitnesseth  in  him. 

jReceived  human  testimony.  Did  not  receive  it. 

And  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  be-         P.iit  I   roceive    not  testimony  from 

cause  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  man :  but  these  things  I  say  that  ye 

beginning.    John  xv.  27.  might  be  saved.    John  v.  34. 

"  I  receive  not,"  etc. ;  that  is,  the  "  testimony "  of  which  I 
have  spoken  is  not  derived  from  human  sources.  It  is  infinitely 
more  authoritative  and  conclusive  than  man's  witness  wouldrbe. 
I  need  not  human  testimony  for  mjself ;  I  merely  adduce  it 
for  your  sakes,  that  "  ye  miglit  be  saved." 

Mission. 

Peace.  War. 

The  I'rinco  of  Peace.    Of  the  increase        Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send 

of ///.f  government  iijul  peace  ^/icre  *•/(«//    peace  on   earth;   I   came   not  to  send 

be  no  end.     Isa.  i.v.  C.  7.  peace,  but  a  sword.     For  I  am  conio  to 

Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my  peace  1     set  a  man  at  variance  against  liis  father, 

give  unto  you.    John  xiv.  27.  and  the  daiighter  against  her  mother, 

and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her 
mother-in-law.  And  a  man's  (oes  xhatt 
be  tli(>v  of  his  own  household.  Matt. 
X.  34-3G 

That  is,  the  object  of  his  mission  was  ])eace,  Init  a  result  of 
it  would,  in  many  cases,  be  strife  and  war.  Often,  in  securing 
a  valuable  end,  we  cannot'  avoid  certain  incidental  evils.  The 
object  of  the  surgeon  in  amputating  a  diseased  linili  is  tlie 
preservation  of  life,  yet  pain,  as  an  incidental  evil,  follows  the 
stroke  of  his  6cali)el. 

'  Works,  i.  «79. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  119 

A  religion  of  inherent,  radical  j^urity  could  not  be  promul- 
gated in  the  world  without  awakening  the  fierce  antagonism  of 
everything  impure  and  evil.  Hence  would  arise  strife  and 
division,  bitter  conflicts,  —  as  incidental  evils,  the  grand,  ulti- 
mate, unvarying  object  being,  nevertheless,  holiness  and  peace. 

Extended  to  all  men.  To  Israelites  alone. 

I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the  Go  notlnto  the  way  .)f  the  Gentilcs.atid 

Geiitileii,  that  tliou  iiiayest  be  my  sal-  into  an)/  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter 

vation  unto  the  end  of  tlie  earth.    Isa.  ye  not.    But  jro  rather  to  the  lost  sheep 

xlix.  6.  of  the  house  of  Israel.     Matt.  x.  5,  6. 

Christ  Jesus;   who   pave    himself  a  J  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep 

ransom  for  all.    1  Tim.  ii.  6.  of  the  house  of  Israel.    Matt.  xv.  24. 

He  made  atonement,  "  tasted  death,"  for  every  man,  and  the 
benefits  of  his  mediation  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  enjoyed  by 
all,  but  his  personal  mission  was  chiefly  to  the  "  house  of  Israel." 
And  the  first,  but  not  the  later,  mission  of  the  apostles  was 
similarly  restricted. 

To  the  Samaritans.  To  Jews  only. 

And  sent  messengers  before  his  face;  He  departed  from  Galilee,  and  came 

and  they  went  and  entered  into  a  vil-  into  the  coasts  of  Judea,  beyond  Jor- 

lape  of  the  Samaritans  to  make  ready  dan.     Matt.  xix.  1. 

for  him.    Luke  ix.  52.  (The  woman  was  a  Gr(>ek,  a  Syro- 

And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  went  to  phenician  by  nation,)  and  she  besoiight 

Jerusalem,  that  he  pa.ssed  through  the  him  that  he  would  castfoith  the  devil 

midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee.    Luke  out  of  her  daughter.     Uut  Jesus  said 

xvii.  11.  unto  her.  Let  the  children  tirst  be  filled : 

He  left  Judea,  and   departed  again  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's 

into  Galilee.    And  he  must  needs  go  bread,  and  to  cast  it  unto  the  dogs, 

through  Samaria    Jolin  iv.  3,  4.  Mark  vii.  26,  27. 

So  when  the  Samaritans  were  come 
unto  him  they  b(>sought  him  that  he 
would  tarry  with  them:  and  he  abode 
there  two  'days.  And  many  more  be- 
lieved because  of  his  own  word.  John 
iv.  40,  41. 

"  It  is  impossible,"  says  Zeller,'  to  reconcile  these  different 
accounts."  Now  the  truth  is,  that  the  infrequent  exceptions 
alluded  to  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  only  prove  the  general 
rule,  that  Christ's  personal  mission  was  to  the  Jews.  The 
mere  fact  that,  in  journeying  from  Judea  to  Galilee,  he  passed 
through  Samaria,  which  hty  between  the  two,  or  that  he  wrought 
a  miracle  upon  one  Samaritan,  and  virtually  commended 
another.-  or  that  lie  actually  tai-ried  two  wliole  days  in  Sycluir, 
does  not,  in  the  .'ilightcst,  militate  against  the  certainty  that  //is 
personal  mi'nisfri/  was  among  tlie  children  of  I.srael. 

*  Strauss  and  Reiiari,  p.  79.  -  Luke  xvii.  10  and  x.  S3-37. 


120 


DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


To  fulfil  the  law.  To  redeem  from  its  curse. 

Think  not  that  1  am  come  to  destroy        Christ  hatli  redeemed  us  from  the 
the  law,   or  the  prophets:    I  am  not    curse  of  the  law.    Gal.  iii.  13. 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fullil.    Matt. 
V.  17. 

He  came  to  carry  out  the  great  end  of  the  law,  to  secure  the 
righteousness  of  man.  He  "fulfilled,"  perfectly  obeyed,  the 
moral  law,  while  in  him,  as  the  great  Antitype,  the  types  and 
figures  of  the  ceremonial  law  culminated  and  were  fulfilled. 
At  the  same  time,  he  came  to  redeem,  by  liis  atonement,  peni- 
tent sinners  from  the  "  curse,"  the  penalty  of  the  law. 


To  judge  the  world. 

For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man;  but 
hath  committed  all  judsment  unto  the 
Son:  and  hath  given  him  authoiity  to 
execute  judgment  also.    Jolin  v.  22,  27. 

.Jesus  said,  For  judgment  I  am  come 
into  this  world,  that  they  which  see 
not  might  see;  and  that  they  which  see 
might  be  made  bliud.    John  ix.  39. 


Not  to  judge. 

For  (iod  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condemn  thewoild;  but  that 
the  world  through  him  might  be  saved. 
John  iii   17. 

Ye  judge  after  the  flesh;  I  judge  no 
man.    John  viii.  15. 

And  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and 
believe  not,  I  judge  him  not:  for  1 
came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to 
save  the  world.    John  xii.  47. 

The  Greek  word  '*  krino  "  has  the  distinct,  though  associated, 
meanings,  to  Judge  mei'ely,  and  to  condemn.  In  some  of  the 
above  passages  it  seems  to  be  used  in  one  sense,  in  others  a 
different  one  is  employed.  Jesus  came,  in  a  sense,  to  "  jvtdge  " 
tlie  world,  that  is,  to  determine,  liy  means  of  the  gospel,  the 
moral  status,  and  consequent  final  destiny  of  men ;  yet  his 
j)rimary  object  was  not  to  condemn  men,  though,  in  the  pro- 
cess of  judgment,  the  condemnation  of  some  Avill  be  a  certain, 
altliough  incidental,  result.  "  I  judge  no  man,"  i.e.  after  your 
manner.,  or  else,  during  my  present  mission.  At  his  second 
coming  '  he  will '  in  the  ultimate  and  highest  sense,  ''  judge  the 
world." 

Miracles. 


Proof  of  divine  mission. 

And  Israel  saw  that  groat  work  which 
the  Ix)ui>did  upon  the  Fgyptians:  and 
the  p<'opI«'  feared  the  J^o'iiD,  and  be- 
lieved the  I.OKi),  and  his  servant  Moses. 
Kx.  xiv.  :jl. 

Art  thou  lie  that  should  come,  or 
do  we  look  fur  another?  Jesus  an- 
swercfi  and  said  unto  them,  (jo  and 
shew  John  again  tho-e  tilings  which 
ye  do  liear  and  see:  the  blind  receive 
their  sight,   and  the    lame   walk,  the 


Not  a  proof. 

Then  Tharaoh  also  called  the  wise 
men,  and  the  sorcerers:  now  the  ma- 
gicians of  K.gypt,  they  also  did  in  like 
manner  with  tlieir  enchantments:  for 
they  cast  down  every  man  his  rod,  and 
they  became  serjients.     Fx.  vii.  11,  12. 

And  the  magicians  did  so  with  thi'ir 
enchantments,  and  brought  uj)  frogs, 
upon  tht!  land  of  Kgypt.     Fx.  viii.  7. 

If  there  arise  among  you  a  prophet, 
or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  givetb 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  121 

Proof  of  ditnne  mission.  Not  a  proof. 

Ippors  are  cleansed,  and  the  doaf  hear,    tliee  a  siifrn  or  a  wonder,  and  the  si^n 
the  dead  are  raised  up.     Malt.  xi.  3-5.      or  the  wonder  come  to  pa.<s,  whereof  he 

l{a1)bi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  spake  unto  thee,  saying.  l,et  u.s  go  after 
teaclier  come  from  God:  for  no  man  olhor  gods  which  thou  liast  not  known, 
can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  and  let  us  serve  them;  thou  shalt  not 
except  (jod  be  with  him.    .lohn  iil.  2.       hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  pro- 

Xhe  works  whicli   the  Father  hath    piiet,  or  that  dreamer  i:f  dreams:  for 

f  i veil  me  to  linish,  the  same  works  that    the  Lord  your  God  proveth  you,  to 
do,   bear  witness    of   me,  tliat    the    know  whether  ye  love  the  Lokd  your 
Father  hath  sent  me.    John  v.  33.  God  with  all  your  heart  and  with  all 

God  also  hearing  ^/(ew  witness,  both    your  soul      Deut.  xii.  1-3. 
with  signs  and  wonders,  and  with  di-        For  there  shall  arise  false  Christs, 
vers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the   Holy    and   false    prophets,   and    shall    shew 
Ghost,  according  to  liis  own  will.   Heb.    great   signs    and  wonders;    insomuch 
ii.  4.  that,  if  it  vere  possible,  they  shall  de- 

ceive the  very  elect.     JIatt.  xxiv.  24. 

And  if  I  by  Ueelzebub  cast  out  devils, 
by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out? 
therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges. 
Luke  xi.  19. 

Eren  him,  whose  coming  is  after  the 
working  of  Satan,  with  all  power  and 
signs  and  lying  wonders.  2  Thess.  ii.  9. 
And  he  doeth  great  wonders,  so  that 
he  maketh  tire  come  down  from  heaven 
on  the  earth  in  the  sight  of  men,  and 
deceiveth  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth 
by  the  means  of  those  miracles.  Kev. 
xiii.  13, 14. 

On  tliis  general  subject,  we  may  say  that  miracles  are  one, 
but  not  the  only,  proof  of  the  divine  mission  of  a  religious 
teacher.  His  own  character  and  claims,  as  well  as  the  nature 
of  his  miracle,  and  of  the  doctrine  he  propounds,  must  be  taken 
into  the  account.  There  are  two  or  three  preliminary  questions 
which  must  be  considered  before  we  proceed  fmlher. 

1.  What  constitutes  a  miracle '?  "We  give  various  answers. 
Dr.  Charles  Ilodge  : '  "  An  event,  occurring  in  the  external 
world,  which  involves  the  suspension  or  counteracting  of  some 
natural  law,  aud  which  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  the 
immediate  power  of  God."  "  After  all,"  he  says  elsewhere, 
"  the  suspension  or  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature  involved  in 
miracles  is  nothing  more  than  is  constantly  takmg  place  around 
us.  One  force  counteracts  another ;  vital  force  keeps  the 
chemical  laws  of  matter  in  abeyance ;  and  muscular  force  can 
control  the  action  of  physical  force.  When  a  man  raises  a 
weight  from  the  ground,  the  law  of  gravity  is  neither  suspended 

1  Theoloy;y,  Vol.  ii.  p.  75,  and  Vol.  i.  p.  621. 
11 


122  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

nor  vaolated,  but  counteracted  by  a  stronger  force.  The  same 
is  true  as  to  the  walking  of  Christ  on  the  water,  and  the 
swimming  of  the  iron  at  the  command  of  the  prophet." 

Prof.  Park  :  ^  "  A  miracle  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  matter 
and  of  finite  muid  in  their  established  method  of  operating." 
Or,  more  specifically,  "  a  phenomenon  which  occurs  in  violation 
of  the  laws  of  nature  as  they  commonly  operate,  and  which  is 
designed  to  attest  the  divine  authority  of  the  messenger  in 
whose  behalf  it  occurs." 

Archbishop  Trench:^  "An  extraordinary  divine  causality 
belongs  to  the  very  essence  of  the  miracle.  . . .  Beside  and 
beyond  the  ordinary  operations  of  natm'e,  higher  powers, 
(higher,  not  as  coming  from  a  higher  source,  but  as  bearing 
upon  liigher  ends,)  intrude  and  make  themselves  felt  even  at 
the  very  springs  and  sources  of  her  power." 

Bleek  ^  and-  Schleiermacher :  "  A  miracle  is  an  event  only 
relatively  supernatural ;  not  absolutely  violating  the  laws  which 
God  has  established,  but  brought  about  Ijy  a  hidden  co-operation 
(rarely  exercised  in  this  manner)  of  other  and  higher  laws 
than  those  which  appear  in  ordinary  phenomena." 

2.  JVhat  is  the  legitimate  force  of  a  miracle^  John  Foster 
has  the  remark  that  a  miracle  is  the  ringing  of  the  gi'cat  bell  of 
the  universe  calling  the  multitudes  to  hear  the  sermon.  Bishop 
Butler  "  Revelation  itself  is  miraculous,  and  miracles  are  the 
l)roof  of  it.  Pascal :  "  Miracles  test  doctrine,  and  doctrine  tests 
miracles."  Rothe  :  "  Miracles  and  prophecies  are  not  adjuncts 
api»ended  from  without  to  a  revelation  in  itself  independent  of 
tliem,  but  constitutive  elements  of  the  revelation  itself."  Ger- 
hard :  ■*  "  The  doctrine  is  the  title-deed,  and  is  essential  to  the 
significance  of  the  seal  attached  to  it.     The  miracle  is  the  seal, 

'  MS.  Lectures.    See,  also,  Smitli's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "Miracles,"  appen- 
dix by  Professor  Parli. 
-  Notes  on  Miracles,  p.  18. 
■^  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  i.  'iiL 
*  Smith's  Bib.  Did.,  Vol.  tii.  ])]).  1!)G0— 19G3. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  123 

and  is  important  for  the  authority  of  the  title-deed.  The  seal 
torn  away  from  the  parchment  cannot  fulfil  its  main  design, 
and  the  parchment  with  the  seal  cut  out  is  lessened  in  value." 

Dr.  Hodge  :  ^  "  When  a  man  presents  himself  as  a  messenger 
of  God,  whether  he  is  to  be  received  as  such  or  not  depends,  first, 
on  the  doctrines  which  he  teaches,  and,  secondly,  upon  the  works 
which  he  performs.  If  he  not  only  teaches  doctrines  conformed 
to  the  nature  of  God  and  consistent  with  the  laws  of  our  own 
constitution,  but  also  performs  works  which  evince  divine  power, 
then  we  know  not  only  that  the  doctrines  are  true,  but  also  that 
the  teacher  is  sent  of  God." 

Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  :  ^  "  You  complain  of  those  persons  who 
judge  of  a  revelation  not  by  its  evidence,  but  by  its  substance. 
It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  its  substance  is  a  most  essen- 
tial part  of  its  evidence ;  and  that  miracles  wa-ouglit  m  favor  of 
what  was  foolish  or  wicked  would  only  prove  Manicheism. 
We  are  so  perfectly  ignorant  of  the  imseen  world,  that  the  char- 
acter of  any  supernatural  power  can  only  be  judged  of  by  the 
moral  character  of  the  statements  which  it  sanctions :  thus  only 
can  we  tell  whether  it  be  a  revelation  from  God  or  from  the 
devil." 

Trench :  ^  "  A  miracle  does  not  prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine, 
or  the  divine  mission  of  liim  that  brings  it  to  pass.  That  which 
alone  it  claims  for  him,  at  the  outset,  is  a  right  to  be  listened 
to ;  it  puts  liim  in  the  alternative  of  being  from  heaven,  or  from 
heU.  The  doctrine  must  first  commend  itself  to  the  conscience 
as  being  good,  and  only  then  can  the  miracle  seal  it  as  divine. 
But  the  first  appeal  is  from  the  doctrine  to  the  conscience,  to 
the  moral  nature  in  man." 

John  Locke :  *  ''  Though  the  common  experience  and  the 
ordinary  course  of  thuigs  have  justly  a  mighty  influence  on  the 

»  Thcolojry,  i.  636. 

"  Life,  ii.  •202  (Popular  edition,  Boston,  1871). 

*  On  Miracles,  p.  '27. 

*  On  Human  L  iiderstaniling,  Book  iv.,  chap.  xvi.  sect.  13, 


124  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

minds  of  men,  to  make  tliem  give  or  refuse  credit  to  anytliing 
l^roposed  to  their  belief:  yet  there  is  one  case  wherein  the 
strangeness  of  the  fact  lessens  not  the  assent  to  a  fair  testimony 
given  of  it.  For  where  such  supernatural  events  are  suitable 
to  ends  aimed  at  by  him  who  has  the  power  to  change  the 
course  of  nature,  there,  under  such  circumstances,  they  may  be 
the  fitter  to  procure  belief,  by  how  much  the  more  they  are 
beyond,  or  contrary  to,  ordinary  observation.  This  is  the 
proper  case  of  miracles,  which,  well  attested,  do  not  only  find 
credit  themselves,  but  give  it  also  to  other  truths,  which  need 
such  confirmation." 

Dr.  Thomas  Brown  :  ^  "  A  miracle  is  not  a  ^nolation  of  any 
law  of  nature.  It  involves,  therefore,  primarily,  no  contradic- 
tion nor  phj^sical  absurdity.  It  has  nothing  in  it  which  is 
inconsistent  with  our  belief  of  the  most  undeviating  uniformity 
of  nature  ;  for  it  is  not  the  sequence  of  a  different  event  when 
the  preceding  circumstances  have  been  the  same ;  it  is  an  effect 
that  is  new  to  our  observation,  because  it  is  the  result  of  new 
and  2)eculiar  circumstances.  The  antecedent  has  been,  by  sup- 
position, different ;  and  it  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  the 
consequent  should  be  different."  "  It  is  essential,  indeed,  for 
our  belief  of  any  miraculous  event,  that  there  should  be  the 
appearance  of  some  gracious  purpose,  which  the  miracle  may 
be  supposed  to  fulfil ;  since  all  which  we  know  of  the  operation 
of  the  divine  power  in  the  universe  indicates  some  previous 
purpose  of  that  kind." 

We  are  now  prepared  to  see  the  distinction  between  true 
miracles  and  other  events  which  might  be  confounded  with 
them.  A  genuine  miracle  tends  to  confirm  the  associated 
doctrine,  and  is  in  turn  sanctioned  by  it,  wlijle  both  the  doctrine 
and  the  miracle  commend  themselves  to  our  reason  as  worthy 
of  the  Author  of  nature.  It  obviously  follows  that  not  every 
struiuje feat  is  to  lie  regarded  as  a  "miracle."  The  almost  in- 
credible  performances   of  certain   jugglers,  contemplating  no 

>  Oni  Relation  of  Cause  ami  Effect,  pp.  224,  230. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES,  125 

great  moral  end,  are  not  to  be  classed  with  "  miracles,"  but  are 
to  be  attributed  to  "sleight-of-hand,"  or  to  a  knowledge  of 
certain  occult  laws  and  forces  of  nature.  The  wonders  wrought 
with  Jire^  in  the  Middle  Ages,  which  men  then  regarded  as 
miracles,  we  now  see  to  have  been  mere  tricks,  utterly  un- 
worthy of  the  intervention  of  the  Divine  Being. 

Again,  it  must  be  remembered  that,  as  Trench'  has  clearly 
shown,  Satan's  kingdom  has  its  own  miracles,  as  well  as  the 
divine  kingdom,  and  these  really  involve  the  intervention  of 
spiritual  and  supernatural  agencies  coming  from  the  realm  of 
darkness.  Not  being  "  miracles,"  in  the  very  liighest  sense  of 
the  word,  they  only  partake  in  part  of  the  essential  elements 
of  the  miracle.  They  exhibit  "  not  the  omnipotence  of  God 
wielding  his  own  world  to  ends  of  grace  and  wisdom  and  love, 
but  evil  permitted  to  intrude  into  the  hidden  springs  of  things, 
just  so  far  as  may  suffice  for  its  own  deeper  confusion  in  the 
end,  and,  in  the  meanwhile,  for  the  needful  trial  and  perfecting 
of  God's  saints  and  servants." 

Alford :  "  Miracles,  as  such,  are  no  test  of  truth,  but  have 
been  permitted  to,  and  prophesied  of,  false  religions  and  teach- 
ers." For  illustration  of  this  statement,  he  refers  to  several  of 
the  texts  quoted  at  the  head  of  this  article. 

As  to  the  feats  of  the  magicians  of  Egypt,  Bush,  Dwight, 
and  others  think  they  were  merely  the  tricks  of  skilful  jug- 
glers.^ Many  commentators,  however,  seem  disposed  to  recog- 
nize the  supernatural  character  of  the  feats  ascribed  to  the 
magicians. 

Keil :  "  With  our  very  limited  acquaintance  with  the  dark 
domain  of  heathen  conjuring,  the  possibility  of  their  working 
'  lying  wonders  after  the  working  of  Satan,'  i.e.  supernatural 
things  (2  Thess.  ii.  9),  cannot  be  absolutely  denied."     He  adds, 

'  See  Brewster's  Letters  on  Natural  Magic,  Letter  13. 
^  Notes  on  Miraflcs,  pp.  '25-'27. 

'  Compare  Davidson's  curt  remarks  on  this  point;  Introd.  to  Old  Test., 
i.  pp.  221,  222. 

11* 


126  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

"  In  the  persons  of  the  conjurers  Pharaoh  summoned  the  might 
of  the  gods  of  Egypt  to  ojipose  the  might  of  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  the  Hebrews." 

Trench :  "  Rather  was  this  a  conflict  not  merely  between 
Egypt's  king  and  the  power  of  God ;  but  the  gods  of  Egypt, 
the  spiritual  powers  of  wickedness,  which  underLay,  and  were 
the  soul  of,  that  dark  and  evil  kingdom,  were  in  conflict  with 
the  God  of  Israel." 

Hengstenberg :  1  "The  object  to  which  all  of  these  occur- 
rences were  dnected,  according  to  chap.  viii.  20,  was  to  show 
that  Jehovah  is  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land."  This  critic 
thinks  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  does  not  speak  defi- 
nitely upon  the  natm-e  and  origin  of  the  results  produced  by 
the  Egyptian  magicians,  and  that  there  is  nothing  existing 
which  can  give  us  any  information  concerning  his  opinion. 

As  to  Deut.  xiii.,  we  have  seen  that  the  miracle  iper  se,  apart 
from  the  message,  is  not  conclusive  proof  of  the  divine  mission 
of  the  thaumaturgist.  In  this  specific  case,  if  the  miracle- 
worker  should  inculcate  "  idolatry,"  —  which  had  been  most 
strictly  and  explicitly  forbidden  by  Jehovah,  —  this  smgle  cir- 
cumstance was  to  be  taken  as  absolute  evidence  that  he  was  a 
false  prophet  and  a  deceiver.  Hence,  the  "miracle"  would, 
in  such  case,  be  simply  the  work  of  Satan,  which  God  suf- 
fered to  be  wrought  for  the  purpose  of  testing  man's  loyalty 
and  fidelity  to  him. 

The  "great  signs  and  wonders,"  in  Matt,  xxiv.,  if  of  a 
supernatural  character,  are  like  those  we  have  just  mentioned. 

Luke  xi.  19  was  a  home-thrust,  an  argumentum  ad  hominem. 
He  said,  in  substance,  "I  cast  out  devils,  as  also  your  sons 
claim  to  do.  Now,  if,  as  you  assume,  the  exorcist  is  in  league 
with  Satan,  how  is  it  with  your  own  sons  ?  " 

As  to  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  Trench  says,  "  They  are  '  hjiufj  won- 
ders,' not  because  in  themselves  frauds  and  illusions,  but 
because  they  are  wrought  to  support  the  kingdom  of  lies."    Or, 

»  Egypt  and  tho  Books  of  Moses,  pp.  98, 104, 105. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  127 

as  Alford  says,  they  "  have  falsehood  for  their  base  and  essence 
and  aim." 

Much  the  same  may  be  said  with  reference  to  the  text  in 
Revelation,  which  Alford  interprets  as  delineating  one  charac- 
teristic of  the  Pajial  church,  the  claim  to  work  "  miracles  "  of 
various  kinds. 

This  topic  may  be  dismissed  with  the  single  remark  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  miracles  and  the  doctrine  of  our  Saviour  are. 
at  the  same  time,  congruous  wilh  each  other,  and  worthy  of 
God,  the  miracles  may  fairly  be  urged  in  corroboration  of  the 
divinity  of  his  mission. 

Modes  of  Representitig  Hhn. 

Despised.  Honorable. 

He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men ;        Unto  you  therefore  which  believe  fie 
a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with    is  precious.i    1  Tet.  ii.  7. 
grief:  and  we  hid  as  it  were  our  faces 
from  liim;  he  was  despised,  and  we  es- 
teemed him  not.    Isa.  liii.  3. 

These  two  texts  contemplate  quite  different  classes  of  persons ; 

the  one  those  who,  being  spiritually  enlightened,  see  the  real 

character  and  glory  of  the  Messiah ;  the  otlier  those  who  are 

still  in  the  darkness  and  blmdness  of  sin. 

Uncomely.  Lovely. 

As  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground:  he        My  beloved  is  wliite  and  ruddy,  the 

hath  no  form  nor  comeliness;  and  when    chiefest  among  ten  thousand.  ...  His 

we  shall  see  liim  there  is  no  beauty  that    mouth  is  most  sweet:  yea,  lie  is  alto- 

we  should  desire  him.    Isa.  liii.  2.  gether  lovely.    This  is  my  beloved,  and 

this  ts  my  friend.    Cantic.  v.  10,  16. 

There  is  no  proof  that  these  last  texts  refer  to  the  ]\Iessiah. 

If  they  do  so,  it  only  need  be  said  that  he  is  despised  by  some 

persons,  and  admired  by  others. 

A  lion.  A  lamb. 

Behold,  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.        And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked. 

Itev.  V.  5.  he  saith.   Behold  the  ijamb  of  Clod! 

John  i.  30. 

In  one  aspect,  he  is  termed  a  "  lion  "  in  another  a  "  lamb." 
The  term  "•  lion  "  brings  out  the  idea  of  his  domuiion,  as  well 
as  that  of  liis  descent  from  the  tribe  of  Judah ;  -  tlu;  lami) 
was  an  emblem  of  innocence,  and  was  usually  offered  ui  sacriiice. 

*  The  original  word  properly  means  an  honor.  "  Sec  Gen.  xli.\.  9. 


128  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Hi(jh  Priest.  A  sacrifice. 

We  have  such  a  high  priest,  who  is  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
set  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  sacrifice  of  himself.  . .  .  Christ  was  once 
the  Majesty  in  the  heavens.  Heb.  viii.  1.    oll'erod  to  bear  the  sins  of  many.    Heb. 

ix.  26,  28. 

Ib  making  the  atonement,  he  voluntarily  laid  down  his  own 

life ;  he  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all "  ;  he  was  the  offerer 

and  the  offered,  both  priest  and  victim.     On  the  term  "  high 

priest,"  Alford  says,  "  the  propitiatory,  sacerdotal  representative 

of  men  before  God." 

A  vine.  A  stone. 

I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches :  he  Je.>ius  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 

that  abideth  in  me.  and  1  in  him,  tlie  comer-stone.    Eph.  ii.  20. 

same  bringeth  forth   much   fruit:   for  And  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock 

without  me  ye  can  do  nothing.    John  of  oUence.  even  to  them  which  stumble 

XV.  5.  at  the  word,  being  disobedient.    1  I'et. 

ii.  8. 

The  figure  of  the  "vine"  and  "branches"  sets  forth  the 
intimate,  vital  union  of  Christ  and  his  people,  together  with 
their  entire  dependence  upon  liim  for  spiritual  nutriment  and 
growth.     AKord :  "  The  inner  amity  of  liimself  and  liis." 

The  term  "  stone "  metaphorically  presents  Jesus  as  the 
"  foundation  "  upon  which  liis  people  build ;  also  as  the  occasion 
of  the  "stumbling"  and  final  overthrow  of  his  enemies. 

A  shepherd.  A  sheep. 

I  am  the  good  .shepherd:  the  good  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter; 
shepherd  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep,  and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  his  shear- 
John  X.  11.  er.  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth.    Acts 

Our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  viii.  32. 

of  the  .-beep.    Heb.  xiii.20.  Washed  their  robes,  and  made  them 

The  .-^  hepherd  and  Bishop  of  your  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.    Itev. 

Bouls.    1 1'l't.  ii.  25.  vii.  14. 

The  first  figure  represents  his  tender,  watchful  care  and  over- 
sight of  his  "little  flock";  the  second  brings  to  view  the 
meekness  and  innocence  of  his  personal  character,  together 
willi  tlie  fact  that  he,  like  u  lumb,  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice. 

A  Door.  Bred'l. 

I   am  the  dec  r:  by  me  if  anv  man        I   am  the  living  broad  which  came 

pnlerin,  liesli;ill  be  saved,  and  shall  go    down  from  heaven:  if  any  man  eat  of 

in    and   out  and    lind   i)asture.     John     this  bread,  he  sliall   live  for  ever:  and 

X  9.  the  bread  lliat  1  will  give  is  my  flesh, 

which   1   will  give  for  the  life  oi  the 
world.    John  vi.  51. 

I'he  first  text  jjoints  out  the  fact  that  Christ  is  the  only 
medium  of  access  to  the  Father ;  that  in  his  name,  by  liis  aid, 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  129 

and  through  his  atonement,  we  come  to  God.     The  second  text 

implies  that   as   material    bread  must  be  eaten,  digested,  and 

assimilated   by  us,  for    the   maintenance   of   physical   life,  so 

Christ's  spirit  and  teachings  must  be  received  into  our  hearts 

and  incorporated  in  our  lives,  in  order  to  our  spiritual  vitality. 

The  Llijht  of  the  world.  Men  are  lights. 

Tliat  was  tlio  true  Lifilit,  which  light-  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.    Matt, 

etli  every  man  that   cometh  into  the  v.  14. 

world.    John  i.  9.  He  was  a  burning  and  a  shining  light. 

As  long  as  ]  am  in  the  world,  I  am  John  v.  35. 

the  light  of  the  world.    John  ix.  5  Among  whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in 

the  world.    I'liil.  ii.  15. 

In  the  primary  and  highest  sense,  Christ  is  the  Light  of  the 

world  ;  in  a  secondary  and  subordinate  sense,  Christians,  viewed 

as  receiving  and  refiectmg  his  light,  may  be  designated  as  the 

"  light  of  the  world." 

Tlie  Foundation.  Men  are  foundations. 

For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ,  the  ajiostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
1  Cor.  iii.  11.  himself   being  the  chief  coruer-s<OHe. 

Epli.  ii.  20. 

flie  church  of  the  living  God,  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  And 
without  controversy,  great  is  the  mys- 
tery of  godliness.    1  Tim.  iii.  15,  16. 

It  is  not  clear  that  the  quotation  from  Ephesians  implies  that 
the  apostles  and  prophets  were  themselves  the  "  foundation  "  ; 
the  meaning  probably  is,  the  foundation  which  pertained  to 
them,  —  their  fomidation.  Similarly,  "  sword  of  the  Spirit"^ 
means  the  Spirit's  sword.  Meyer,  Ellicott,  Stier,  and  others 
say,  "  the  foundation  which  the  apostles  and  prophets  have  laid." 
Alford  and  Bucer :  "  the  apostles'  and'  prophet's  foundation  — 
that  upon  which  they  as  well  as  yourselves  are  built." 

On  the  last  quoted  text,  Ellicott  says  that  "pillar"  and 
"ground,"  designating  the  church,  are  "  only  simple,  metaphori- 
cal expressions  of  the  stahiliti/  and  permanence  of  the  support," 
and  adds,  "■  were  thei'e  no  church,  there  would  be  no  witness, 
no  guardian  of  archives,  no  basis,  notliing  whereon  acknowlcilged 
truth  could  rest."  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Tholuck,  Luther, 
Calvin,  Beza,  Grotius,  De  Wette,  Iluther,  Alford,  and  Words- 

'  Sec  Eph.  vi.  17. 


130  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

worth  concur  in  this  view,  deeming  the  church  "  the  element 
in  which,  and  medium  by  which,  the  truth  is  conserved  and 
upheld."  But  if  we  admit  that,  in  this  secondary  sense,  the 
church  is  the  "  ground  "  or  basis  of  the  truth,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Christ  is,  after  all,  the  deep  substructure,  the  foun- 
dation, of  the  church  itself. 

It  should  be  added  that  Oosterzee,  with  a  host  of  critics, 
punctuates  the  passage  differently,  thus :  "  The  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,  and  confessedly  great,  is  the  mystery  of 
godliness,"  etc.  With  this  translation  the  Syriac  Peshito  closely 
corresjoonds. 

Sacrifice. 

Died  for  friends.  For  enemies. 

I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  slioep.        While  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ 

John  X.  15.  died  for  us.  . . .  When  we  were  enemies, 

Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 

that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  of  his  Son.    Kom.  v.  8. 10 
friends.    Jolinxv.  13. 

He  laid  down  his  life  for  those  who,  though  "  enemies "  for 
the  time  being,  were  prosj^ectively  "  friends."  This  exhibition 
of  his  love  broke  down  their  enmity,  and  transformed  their 
hostility  into  friendship. 

The  former  passages  refer  to  the  prospective,  the  latter  to 

the  present,  attitude  toward  him,  of  those  for  whom  he  died. 

On  the  first  text  from  John,  Alford  says,  "  The  Lord  lays  down 

his  life  strictly  and  properly,  and  in  the  depths  of  the  divine 

counsel,  for  those  who  are  his  sheep"     On  the   second  text, 

"  Our  Lord  does  not  assert  of  himself  that  he  laid  down  his 

life  only  for  his  friends  (as  defined  in  the  next  verse),  but  puts 

forward  this  side  of  his  love  as  a  great  and  jiractical  example 

for  his  followers." 

Laid  down  hi.'i  otcn  life.  Jews  murdered  him. 

I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  mi^rlit  take        Ilim,  beinp;  delivered  by  the  determi- 
it  ajiain.     No  man  taUi-lli  it  from  me,     nate  counsel  and  foreknowlr'd'ieofCiod, 
but   1  lay  it   down   of  myself     1  have;    ye  have   taken,  and    by  wicked  hands 
power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  ])ower    nave  crncilii'd  iind  shiiii      Acts  ii.  2.'3. 
to  take  it  again.    Jolm  x.  17,  18.  And  killed  tlio  I'rince  of  life.     Acts 

iii.  15. 

The  Just  One;  of  whom  ye  hiivebeen 
now  the  betrayers  and  murderers. 
Acts  vii.  52. 

Both  statements  are  true,  and  there  i.s  not  the  slightest  dis- 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  131 

crepanc3^  The  simple  fact  is,  that  Jesus,  knowing  perfectly 
the  hatred,  power,  and  purpose  of  the  Jews,  voluntarily  surren- 
dered himself  into  their  hands  ;  whereupon  they  "  with  raahce 
aforethought  and  prepense,"  took  his  life.  He  laid  down  his 
own  life,  and  they  killed  liim. 

Intercession. 

Tlie  only  Mediator.  Holy  Spirit  intercedes. 

One  mediator  between  God  and  men,        Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our 
the  man  Clirist  Jesus.    ITim.  ii.  5.  infirmities:  for  we  linow  not  what  we 

stiould  pray  for  as  we  ouglit:  but  tlie 
Sjjirit  itself  makcth  intercession  for  us, 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  ut- 
tered.    Kom.  viii.  26. 

The  last  text  when  properly  translated,  does  not  assert  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  actually  intercedes  for  Christians,  but  simply 
intervenes  for  theu-  aid. 

Barnes :  "  It  simply  means  that  the  Holy  Spirit  greatly  aids 
or  assists  ;  not  by  praying  for  us,  but  in  our  prayers  and  in- 
firmities." Stuart :  Prayer  or  supplication  made  by  the  Spmt 
is  not  here  intended.  The  Spu'it  "  maketh  intercession "  by 
exciting  in  Christians  such  longings  for  conformity  to  God, 
deliverance  from  evil,  and  the  enjoyment  of  future  blessedness 
as  no  language  can  adequately  express. 

Alford :  "  No  intercession  in  heaven  is  here  spoken  of,  but 

a  pleading  in  us  by  the  indwelling  Spirit,  of  a  nature  above  our 

comprehension  and  utterance." 

Intercedes  not  for  the  tcorld.  Does  intercede  for  it. 
I  pray  for  them:  I  pray  not  for  the  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate 
world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  right- 
given   me;  for  they  are  thine.    John  eous.    1  John  ii.  1. 
xvii.  9. 

As  the  connection  evinces,  the  first  text  is  equivalent  to,  "  I 
am  not  now,  at  this  time,  praying  for  the  world."  The  prayer 
in  the  17th  of  John  was  offered  specially  for  the  disciples. 
This  fact,  however,  furnishes  no  proof  that  Jesus  does  not,  at 
present,  mtercede  for  all  mankind. 

Coining. 

In  humble  ijuise.  With  regal  Mate. 

Behold  thv  King  cometh  unto  thee:        Behold,  o«e  like  the  Son  of  man  came 

he  «.s-  just,  and  having  salvation ;  lowly,     with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to 

and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt    the  Ancient  of  days,  and  tlu'v  brought 

the  foal  of  an  ass.    Zech.  ix.  9.  him  near  before  him.    And  th(>re  was 

given  him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a 
kingdom.    Dun.  vii.  W,  14. 


132  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

These  passages  refer  to  entirely  different  events.  The  first 
was  fulfilled  when  our  Saviour  rode  into  Jerusalem  upon  the 
ass ;  the  second  will  be  fulfilled  when  he  shall  come  again,  "in 
the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory." ' 

Succeeds  overthrow  of  Jerusalem.  Times  of  Gentiles  intei'vene. 

For  then  shall  be  groat  tribulation.  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of 

.  .  .  Immediately  after  the  tribulation  the  Gentiles,   until    the    times  of  the 

of  those  days,  shall  the  sun  be  dark-  Gentiles  befullillod.  . .  .  And  then  shall 

enod.  .  . .  And  then  shall  appear  tlie  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  a 

sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in    heaven,  cloud,  with    power    and  great   glory. 

Matt.  xxiv.  21,  29,  30.  Luke  xxi.  24,  27. 

This  is  one  of  Zeller's  objections.  He  claims  that  the  two 
accovmts  are  incompatible  because  one  seems  to  represent  the 
coming  of  Christ  as  following,  without  any  interval,  the  "  tribu- 
lation " ;  the  other,  the  two  events  as  sejjarated  by  the  "  times  of 
the  Gentiles." 

The  difference,  however,  is  easily  accounted  for  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  Matthew  employs  here  what  we  may  term 
"  prophetic  perspective,"  while  Luke  is  writing  somewhat  cu*- 
cumstantitdly  and  minutely.  By  this  "  perspective,"  which  has 
a  beautiful  analogy  in  a  familiar,  philosophical  experiment,  a 
comparatively  small  event  close  to  the  speaker,  appears  of  equal 
magnitude  with  a  momentous  but  remote  event,  so  that  the 
latter  seems  hidden  by  the  fonner,  or  continuous  with  it.  As 
the  observer  looks  down  the  vista  of  the  ages,  the  small  covers 
the  large  event,  and  the  two  seem  but  one. 

On  this  point.  Dr.  Davidson  ^  says,  "  Intervening  periods  were 
mostly  concealed  from  the  sight  of  the  seer."  Bleek  '  says  that 
in  respect  to  time,  "  the  prophecies  are  usually  so  framed  that 
they  have  a  perspective  character,  great  developments  and 
catastrophes,  occurring  at  considerable  intervals  of  time,  appear- 
ing to  be  brf)iig])t  dose  together,  or  to  be  (piite  intermixed." 

Lange:''  "  According  to  the  perspective  view  of  the  future, 
the  successive  critical  events  that  lie  behind  each  other,  are 
brought  near,  so  that  the  great  epochs  rise  into  light  like  tlie 

'  Coiiipurc  Matt,  xxi  l-ll  ami  xxiv.  30.        -  liiirod.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  48t. 
^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  32.  <  Com.  on  Matt.,  p.  430. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  133 

tops  of  mountains,  while  their  times  of  mifolJing,  the  periods, 
are  concealed  behind  them,  or  are  manifest  only  in  less  promi- 
nent signs." 

"Wordsworth  :  Our  Lord's  prophecy  has  a  double  reference, — 
to  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  that  of  which  this  judg- 
ment was  a  type,  viz.  his  second  coming  to  judge  the  world." 

Alford  maintains  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
final  judgment  are  both  enwrapped  in  the  words ;  the  former 
being  prominent  in  the  first  part  of  the  chapter,  while,  from 
verse  28,  the  lesser  subject  begins  to  be  swallowed  up  in  the 
greater,  and  our  Lord's  second  coming  to  be  the  predominant 
theme. 

The  word  "  immechately,"  verse  29,  being  supposed  to  imply 
the  closest  consecution,  is  the  only  term  involving  any  difficidty. 
Hammond  and  Schott  render  the  Greek  term  suddenly,  i.e. 
unexpectedly.  Glass  says  it  is  to  be  taken,  not  according  to 
our  reckoning,  but  the  divine,  in  which  a  thousand  days  are  as 
one  day.  Lange  :  "  Describes  the  nature  of  the  final  catastro- 
phe, that  it  will  be  at  once  swift,  surpassingly  sudden,  and  fol- 
lowing upon  a  development  seemingly  slow  and  gi'adual.  Thus, 
througliout  the  whole  course  of  history,  the  swift  epochs  follow 
the  slow  process  of  the  periods."  Owen :  '*  May  be  taken  in 
the  general  sense,  very  soon  after,  referring  to  the  comparative 
brevity  of  these  intervening  centuries  or  ages,  when  "\aewed  in 
relation  to  the  ages  of  eternity,  which  are  to  follow  the  day  of 
judgment,  and  in  reference  to  which  all  time  is  but  as  a 
moment's  duration."  Alford  very  satisfactorily  says  :  "  All  the 
dilBculty  which  this  word  has  been  supposed  to  involve  has 
arisen  from  confounding  the  partial  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy 
with  the  idtimate  one.  The  important  insertion  in  Luke  ^  shows 
us  that  tlie  '^  tribulation^  includes  ^  wrath  upon  this  people,' 
which  is  yet  being  inflicted ;  and  the  treading  down  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Gentiles '  still  going  on ;  and  immediately  after  that 
trihdation  which  shall  liappen  tohen  the  cup  of  Gentile  iniquity 

•  Chap.  xxi.  23,  24. 
12 


134  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

is  full,  and  when  the  Gospel  shall  have  been  preached  in  all  the 
world  for  a  witness,  and  rejected  by  the  Gentiles,  shall  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  himself  happen." 

His  coming  at  hand.  It  was  far  off. 

We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  That  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind, 
all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  or  be  troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by- 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump,  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  us,  as  that 
1  (or.  XV.  51,  52.  the  day  of  (.Uirist  is  at  hand.     Let  no 

The  Lord  z.s  at  hand.    Phil.  iv.  5.  man  deceive  you  by  any  meaus.  2Thess. 

Wc  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto    ii.  2,  3. 
the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  pre- 
vent them  which  are  asleep.    1  Thess. 
iv.  15. 

15ut  the  end  of  all  thihgs  is  at  hand. 
1 1'et.  iv.  7. 

Even  De  Wette  *  says,  "  It  is  no  contradiction  of  the  fu-st 
Epistle  that  Paul  after  exhortmg  them  to  steadfastly  await 
tlie  second  coming  of  Clirist  (1  Thess.  iv.  15),  felt  himself 
bound  to  moderate  their  too  excited  expectations ;  and  2  Thess. 
ii.  1,  etc.,  is  completely  in  the  spirit  of  primitive  Christianity." 
Simihirly,  Dr.  Davidson,^  on  1  Cor.  xv.  52 :  "  The  expression 
ice  means  such  Christians  as  shall  then  be  alive ;  all  believers 
then  living  are  grouped  together." 

On  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  17,  he  says,  "  Hence  '  we  which  are  alive 
and  remain,'  etc.,  can  only  mean  '  such  Christians  as  live  and 
remain.'  Paul  employs  himself  and  the  early  Christians  as 
the  representatives  of  those  succeeding  Christians  who  should 
be  alive  at  the  Redeemer's  second  advent.  Thus  in  Deut.  xxx. 
1 ,  the  generation  addressed  is  the  representative  of  a  succeed- 
ing one ;  and  in  John  vi.  32,  a  succeeding  generation  is  employed 
to  represent  a  past  one." 

Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  Everything  with  respect  to  degrees  is 
what  it  is  by  comparison.  Taking  into  consideration  the  whcle 
of  time,  the  coming  of  Christ  was  '  at  hand.'  There  is  reason 
to  believe  from  this,  and  many  other  passages  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  the  sacred  writers  considered  themselves  as 
liaving  passed  the  meridian  of  time,  and  entered  into  the  after- 
noon of  tlie  world,  as  we  may  say.     Sucli  ajipears  to  be  the 

'  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  p.  2-17.        -  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  ii.  458, 465-<)6. 
'■"  Works,  i.  082. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  135 

import  of  the  following  among  other  jiassages,  '  God  hath  in 
these  last  days  spoken,'  etc.  . . .  But  taking  into  consideration 
only  a  single  generation,  the  day  of  Chi-ist  was  not  at  hand. 
The  Thcssalonians,  though  a  very  amiable  people,  were  by 
some  means  mistaken  on  this  subject,  so  as  to  expect  that  the 
end  of  the  world  would  take  place  in  their  lifetime,  or  within  a 
very  few  years.  To  correct  this  error,  which  might  have  been 
productive  of  very  serious  evils,  was  a  principal  design  of  the 
second  Epistle  to  that  people." 

It  is  thus  clear  that  this  "  discrepancy  "  of  which  Bam-  makes 
so  much,  really  amounts  to  nothing. 

Before  missionary  journey  completed.       Not  till  the  world  evangelized. 

But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this        And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall 
city,  flee  ye  into  another:  for  verily  1    be  preached  in  all  the  world,  for  a  wit- 
say  unto  you,  Ye  shall  not  have  gone    ness  unto  all  nations;  and  then  shall 
over  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of    the  end  come.    Matt  xxiv  14. 
man  be  come.    Matt.  x.  23.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  published 

among  all  nations.    Mark  xiii.  10. 

Strauss*  works  hard  to  make  out  a  contradiction  here.  He 
remarks  :  "  On  one  occasion  Jesus  says  to  his  disciples  that  the 
Son  of  man  will  return  before  they  shall  have  completed  their 
IMessianic  preaching  in  all  the  cities  of  Israel ;  another  time  he 
says  that  the  second  advent  will  not  occur  until  the  Gospel  has 
been  preached  in  the  whole  world  among  all  peoples."  The 
difficulty  is  obviated  by  the  following  interpretations,  any  one 
of  which  may  be  adopted. 

Barnes,  on  Matt.  x.  23 :  "  That  is,  in  fleeing  from  persecu- 
tors, from  one  city  to  another,  you  shall  not  have  gone  to  every 
city  in  Judca,  tUl  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  end  of 
the  Jewish  economy." 

Wordsworth :  "  In  a  primary  sense,  you  will  not  have  com- 
pleted your  missionary  work  in  Judea  before  I  come  to  judge 
Jerusalem.  In  a  secondary  and  larger  sense,  —  the  missionary 
work  of  the  church  for  the  spiritual  Israel  will  not  cease  till 
the  second  coming  of  Christ.  There  is  a  successive  series  of 
'  comings  of  Christ,'  all  preparatory  to,  and  consummated  in, 
the  great  coming." 

'  Sec  New  Life  of  Jesus,  i.  u.'."». 


136  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Alford  maintains  that  our  Lord's  prophecies  respecting  his 
coming  have  an  immediate,  literal  and  a  distant,  foreshadowed 
fulfilment.  Hence  he  regards  "  the  vengeance  on  Jerusalem, 
which  historically  put  an  end  to  the  old  dispensation,  and  was, 
in  its  place  with  reference  to  that  order  of  things,  the  coming 
of  the  Son  of  man,  as  a  type  of  the  final  coming  of  the  Lord." 
He  calls  attention  to  the  "  wide  import  of  scripture  prophecy, 
which  speaks  very  generally,  not  so  much  of  events  themselves, 
points  of  time,  as  of  processions  of  events,  all  ranging  under 
one  great  description,"  and  adds,  '•  It  is  important  to  keep  in 
mind  the  great,  prophetic  parallels  which  run  through  our 
Lord's  discourses,  and  are  sometimes  separately,  sometimes 
simultaneously,  presented  to  us  by  him." 

On  ''Till  the  Son  of  man  be  come,"  Baumgarten-Crusius 
says,  "Until  the  victory  of  the  cause  of  Christ";  IMichaelis, 
"  To  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  "  ;  Calvin,  "  To  the  outpour- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  "  Norton,  "  That  is,  before  my  religion 
is  established  and  its  truth  fully  confirmed";  Heubner  and 
Lange,  "  Till  the  Son  of  man  shall  overtake  you,"  adding,  "  It 
points  forward  to  the  second  coming  of  Cljrist ;  including  at  the 
same  time  the  idea  that  their  apostolic  labors  in  Judea  would 
be  cut  short."  Lightfoot :  "  Ye  shall  not  have  travelled  over 
the  cities  of  Israel,  preaching  the  gospel,  before  the  Son  of 
man  is  revealed  l)y  his  resurrection." 

These  interpretations,  almost  any  of  which  may  be  adopted 
without  an  arbitrary  exegesis;  serve  to  show  how  slight  is  the 
foundation  for  the  objection  urged  by  Strauss. 

Kingdom. 

Not  of  this  world.  Within  the  Pharisees. 

Wlion  .Josus  thoreforo  porcoivod  that  And  wlion  he  was  domandod  of  the 

they  would  como  and  take  liitii  hy  toico,  Phariseos,  whon  tho  kin-rdom  of  God 

U)  make  hiin  a  kinpr,  ho  dcpwilcd  a<r:un  should  come,   lie  answered  them   and 

into  u  mountain  himself  alone.    John  said.  The  kingdom  ot  (.od  cometli  not 

V'-  1^-                      ,     ..     ,  .  ^^''tl'   observation,     ^eitlle^  sliall  they 

.lesus  answered,  My  kingdom  Is  not  say,  Lo  here!  or,  Lo  tliere'  for  beliohl 

of  tins  world:  if  my  kingdom  were  of  the  kingdom   of  God    is   within    you! 

this  world,   then   would    my  .servants  Luke  xvii.  20,  21. 
light.     .John  xviii.  '.ilj. 


Ancient    interprett^rs  take  the  expression  "within  you,' 


as 


DOCTRINAL   DISCKEPANCIES.  137 

pointing  out  the  fact  that  the  kuigdom  is  an  inward,  spiritual 
one,  having  its  seat  in  the  heart.  Modern  critics  say  that  the 
kingdom  had  already  been  set  up  among  the  Pharisees  by  John 
the  Baptist  and  the  Messiah,  the  former  introducing  it,  the 
latter  embodying  and  representing  it.  Schoettgen :  "  It  does 
not  imply,  in  your  hearts,  but  in  your  land  and  region."  Alford : 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  was  begun  among  them,  and  continues 
thus  making  its  way  in  the  world,  without  observation  of  men." 

It  has  no  end.  Will  terminate. 

And  there  was  given  him  dominion,  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall 

and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  peo-  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  Ood, 

pie,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  even  the  Father;   when  he  shall  have 

him ;    his   dominion   is  an  everlasting  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and 

dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away,  power.    For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath 

and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  .  . .  And 

be  destroyed.    Dan.  vii.  14.  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto 

And  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  him.  then  shall  the  8on  also  himself  be 

Jacob  for  ever:   and  of  his  kingdom  subject  unto  him  that  put   all  things 

there  shall  be  no  end.     I^uke  i.  33.  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all. 

But  unto  the  Son  lie  saith,  Thy  throne,  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  25,  28. 
O  (jod,  is  for  ever  and  ever.    Heb.  i.  8. 

Neander :  "  Inasmuch  as  the  work  of  Christ,  founded  upon 
his  redemptive  acts,  proceeds  toward  a  definite  goal,  it  must 
needs  come  to  a  termination  when  this  goal  is  reached."  Dr. 
Hodge :  "  When  he  has  subdued  aU  his  enemies,  then  he  wiU 
no  longer  reign  over  the  universe  as  Mediator,  but  only  as  God, 
while  his  headship  over  his  people  is  to  continue  forever." 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  holds  that  Christ's  kingdom  has  two  depart- 
ments or  branches,  —  one  relating  to  his  saints,  the  other  to  his 
enemies.  When  the  purposes  of  the  latter  department  are  ful- 
filled, he  will  deliver  it  up  to  the  Father ;  the  former  he  will 
retain  forever. 

Andrew  Fuller;'-  "The  end  of  which  Paul  speaks  does  not 
mean  the  end  of  Christ's  kingdom,  but  of  the  world,  and  the 
things  thereof.  The  '  delivering  up  of  the  kingdom  to  the 
Father '  will  not  put  an  end  to  it,  but  eternally  establish  it  in 
a  new  and  more  glorious  form.  Christ  shall  not  cease  to 
reign,  though  the  mode  of  his  administration  be  different." 

Alford ;   ''  The  kingdom  of  Christ   over   this  world,  in    its 

*  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  571.  ^  Works,  i.  GTS. 

12* 


138  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

beginning,  its  furtherance,  and  its  completion,  has  one  great 
enrl,  —  the  glorification  of  the  Father  by  the  Son.  Therefore, 
when  it  shall  be  fnlly  established,  every  enemy  overcome, 
everything  subjected  to  him,  he  will,  —  not  reign  over  it  and 
abide  its  king,  but  deliver  it  up  to  the  Father." 

Even  on  this  interpretation,  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  will 
continue.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  sul ejects,  laws,  and  policy  of 
that  kingdom  wdl  remain  unchanged ;  only  the  dominion  of 
Chi-ist  will  "•  be  absorbed  in  the  all-pervading  majesty  of  him 
for  whose  glory  it  was  from  first  to  last  carried  onward." 
Bengel  tersely  and  admirably  expresses  the  truth, "  omnia  erunt 
suhordinata  Filio,  Filius  Patri  "  ;  All  things  will  be  subordi- 
nate to  the  Son,  the  Son  to  the  Father. 

Name. 

He  bears  the  Divine  Name.  A  citi/  hears  it. 

In  his  days  Judah  sliall  be  saved,  In  those  days  shall  Jtidah  be  saved, 

and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely:  and  this  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  safely:  and 

iti  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  this  is  the  name  wherewith  she  shall  be 

The    Lord    our   Kighteousness.     Jer.  called,  The  Lord  our  Itighteousness. 

xxiii.  6.  Jer.  xxxiii.  IG. 

Naegelsbach,  in  Lange,  maintains  that  the  word  "  he,"  in  the 
expression,  "  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,"  can 
refer  only  to  Jerusalem.  "  Jehovah  our  Righteousness  "  is  not, 
then,  the  name  of  the  scion  of  David,  but  of  the  nation,  — 
the  idea  being  that  Israel  will  be  a  nation,  that  will  have  no 
other  righteousness  than  Jehovah's.  If  neither  text  refers  to 
the  Messiah,  there  is,  of  course,  no  discrepancy.  Even  if  other- 
wise, we  see  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  the  re- 
deemed nation  should  be  called  after  the  name  of  its  Redeemer 
and  King, 

Note.  —  The  foregoing  arc  —  not  indeed  all  the  cases  aiUluced  by  infidel 
writers, — but  all  which  seem  worthy  of  Tiotice,  and  to  come  properly 
under  this  head.  A  considerable  number  of  apparent  contradictions  per- 
taining to  various  events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  are  referable  to  the  "  histor- 
ical "  department,  and  will  be  discussed  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this 
volume. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


139 


III.    HOLY  SPIRIT.— Fersonality. 


He  is  an  Intelligence. 

Whosoever  speaketh  against  tlie  Holy 
Ghost,  it  shall  Uiit  be  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  world,  neitlier  iu  the 
world  to  come.     JIatt.  xii   32. 

But  the  Comforter,  icliich  ix  the  Holy 
Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in 
my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things, 
and  brinp;  all  tilings  to  your  remem- 
brance, whatsoever  I  have  said  unto 
you.     .John  xiv.  26. 

When  he  tlie  .Spirit  of  truth  is  come, 
he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth:  for  he 
shall  not  speak  of  liimself;  but  what- 
soever he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak  : 
and  ho  will  show  you  things  to  come. 
He  shall  glorify  me:  for  he  shall  re- 
ceive of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto 
you.     John  xvi.  13,  14 

Then  the  Spirit  said  unto  Philip,  Go 
near  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot. 
Acts  viii.  29. 

The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
Philip,  that  the  eunuch  saw  him  no 
more.    Acts  viii.  39. 

The  Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  where- 
unto  1  have  called  them.    Acts  xiii.  2. 

For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  to  uj,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater 
burden.    Acts  xv.  28. 

Tbey  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  but 
the  Spirit  'suffered  them  not.  Acts 
xvi.  7. 

The  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers.  Acts 
XX.  28. 

Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias 
the  ))rophet  unto  our  fathers.  Acts 
xxviii.  25 

And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
knowetli  what  in  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
because  he  makelli  intei-cession  for  the 
saints,  according  to  the  will  of  God. 
Kom.  viii.  27. 

The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea, 
tlie  deej)  things  of  God.  For  what  man 
knowetli  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him?  Kven  so 
tlie  tilings  of  tiod  knowetli  no  man, 
but  the  Spirit  of  God.     1  Gor.  ii.  10,  11. 

For  to  one  is  given  by  the  .spirit  the 
word  ofwisdmn;  to  another  the  word 
of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit.  . . .  But 
all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self- 
same Spirit,  dividing,  to  every  man 
severally  as  he  will.     1  Cor.  xii.  8,  11. 

And  grieve  not  the  holy  Spirit  of 
God.    Lpli.  iv.  30. 


It  is  an  Influence. 

The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the 
face  of  the  waters.    Gen.  i.  2. 

Mine  elect,  in  whom  my  soul  delight- 
eth ;  1  have  put,  my  Spirit  upon  him. 
Isa.  xlii.  1. 

I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem, until  ye  be  endued  with  power 
from  on  high.    Luke  xxiv.  49. 

God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure 
unto  him     John  iii.  34. 

Ve  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  da.ys  hence.    Acts  i.  5. 

Saith  God,  1  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh.  .  .  .  And  on  my 
servants  and  on  my  hand-maidens,  1 
will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit. 
Acts  ii.  17,  18. 

Peter,  tilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  said 
unto  them.    Acts  iv.  8. 

God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power.  ... 
The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word.    Acts  x.  38,  44. 

Quench  not  the  Spirit.    1  Thess.  v.  19. 


It  is  obvious  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  series  of  texts 
must  be  interpreted  figuratively.     When  we  take  into  consid- 


140  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

eration  the  numerical  preponderance,  as  well  as  the  evident 
literaluess  and  verisimilitude,  of  the  former  class  of  texts,  we 
are  led  to  conclude  that  they  are  to  be  taken  according  to  their 
natural  and  obvious  import,  wliile  those  of  the  latter  class  must 
be  interpreted  tropically. 

There  are  two  theories  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit ;  one,  that 
he  is  a  distinction  in  the  Trinity,  co-equal,  co-essential,  co-eternal 
with  the  Father  and  Son ;  the  other,  that  it  is  "  simply  the 
divine  influence,  sometimes  in  creation,  and  in  outward  events, 
but  in  the  gi'eat  majority  of  instances,  on  the  soul  of  man."^ 
Between  these  two  theories,  we  discover  no  tenable  middle 
ground.  Unquestionably  the  first  theory  affords  a  better  basis 
for  the  explanation  of  both  the  foregoing  classes  of  texts,  than 
the  second  can  be  made  to  furnish  by  any  exegetical  ingenuity. 
Some  orthodox  critics,  however,  think  that  in  certain  cases,  the 
term  "  spu-it  of  God  "  is  a  synonyme  for  the  "  power  of  God ; "  or 
that  the  name  is  put  by  metonymy  for  the  effect  of  the  Spirit. 

Clearly,  several  texts  of  the  second  series  must,  upon  any 
theory  of  inter23retation,  be  regarded  as  figurative.  The  ex- 
pressions "  bajDtized  with,"  "  pouring  out,"  etc.,  merely  indicate 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  be  bestowed  in  great  fulness.  It 
should  be  carefully  noted  that  this  figurative  "  baptism  "  took 
place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  disciples  were  "  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  ^  And  the  fact  that  they  were  thus  "  filled  " 
is  not  in  the  least  rei^ugnant  to  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
an  Intelligence  ;  for  Satan  is  im questionably  represented  in  the 
scriptures  as  a  personal  being,  yet  we  are  told  that  he  "  entered 
into  "  Judas  and  "  filled  the  heart "  of  Ananias.  ^  Unless  we 
deny  all  supra-mundane  agencies  and  influences,  we  must  admit 
that  one  intelligence  may  enter  into,  possess,  and  fill  another. 

The  metaphorical  nature  of  the  words  "  anointed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,"  is  beyond  question,  even  on  the 
hypothesis  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  mere  influence.     For  the 

'  Professor  Peabody,  Lectures  on  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  116. 

*  iJonjpare  Acts  i.  5  with  ii.  4.  "  See  Lul^e  xxii.  8;  Acta  v.  3. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  141 

idea  of  a  literal  "  anointing  "  with  an  influence  or  with  power  is 
an  absurdity.  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  metaphor? 
It  appears  that,  among  the  Jews,  a  prophet,  priest,  or  king  was 
"  anointed "  when  he  was  set  apart  for,  or  inducted  into,  his 
office.  This  ceremony,  "  according  to  the  Hebrew  symbology, 
denoted  his  receiving  the  spiritual  gifts  and  endowments  which 
he  needed  for  the  i^erformance  of  his  duties." 

The  "  anointing  "  spoken  of,  means,  says  Prof.  Ilackett,  that 
Christ  "  possessed  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  without  measure,  was 
furnished  in  a  perfect  manner  for  the  work  wliicli  he  came  into 
the  world  to  execute." 

In  the  quotation  from  1  Thess.,  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  on  account 
of  his  purifying  and  illuminating  power,  figuratively  spoken  of 
as  fire.  The  word  "  quench "  simply  keeps  up  the  figure. 
This  representation,  however,  no  more  disproves  the  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  than  does  the  fact  that  God  is  termed  a 
"  consuming  fire,"  militate  against  his  personality.  Both  ex- 
pressions are  figures  setting  forth  certain  aspects  of  the  truth. 

The  methods  of  interpretation  adopted  by  those  who  do  not 
admit  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  exemplified  as 
follows.  Prof.  Peabody,'  on  Rom.  viii.  26,  27,  says,  "  I  do  not 
think  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  referred  to  in  this  passage. 
It  is  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man^  of  the  Christian,  that  is  here 
spoken  of  . . .  for  the  souls  of  the  righteous  intercede  for  them 
according  to  the  divine  wUl."  With  what  propriety  a  man's 
own  soul  or  spirit  coidd  be  said  to  "  intercede  "  for  him,  the 
reader  must  judge. 

Divtuiti/. 

He  is  God.  He  is  subordinate. 

Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  lie  shall 
filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  give  you  another  Comforter.  John 
(ihost, .  .  .  thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,    xiv.  16. 

but  unto  God.    Acts  v.  3,  4.  When  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom 

I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
eren  the  Spirit  oftruth  which  proceed- 
eth  from  the  Father.    Jehu  xv.  26. 

The  latter  texts  refer  to  an  official,  but  not  an  essential,  sub- 
'  Lectures  on  Christian  Doctrine,  p  114. 


142  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 

ordination.  It  may  be  inferred  from  them  that  there  is  a  fitness 
in  the  Holy  Spirit's  undertaking  the  function  indicated,  but  not 
that  he  is  not  truly  and  properly  divine.  Dr.  Hodge  *  terms  the 
Spirit  "  the  executive  of  the  Godhead,"  and  says,  "  he  is  subor- 
dinate to  the  Father  and  Son,  as  to  his  mode  of  subsistence  and 
operation,  as  he  is  said  to  be  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son ;  he 
is  sent  by  them,  and  they  operate  through  him." 

While,  therefore,  liis  subordioation  as  to  office  is  plainly 
taught,  there  is  no  proof  of  liis  inferiority  in  respect  to  sub- 
stance or  essence. 

Fruits.^ 

Love  and  Gentleness.  Vengeance  and  Fury. 

But  tlip  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,        Tlie  IMiilistines  sliouted  ajiainst  him : 

ppace.  long-sutierin^,  gentleness,  good-    and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  inigh- 

ness,  fiiith,  meekness,  temperance,   (jal.    tily  upon  liim,  and  the  cords  that  irere 

V.  22,  23.  upon  his  arms  became  as  flax  that  was 

burnt  with  tire,  and  his  bands  loosed 
from  oil'  his  hands.  And  he  found  a 
new  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  and  i)ut  forth 
his  hand,  and  took  it,  anil  slew  a  thou- 
sand men  therewith.  Judges  xv.  14, 15. 
The  evil  spirit  from  G<id  came  upon 
Saul.  .  . .  And  there  irax  a  javelin  iu 
Saul's  hand.  And  Saul  cast  the  javelin'; 
for  he  said,  I  will  smite  David,  even  to 
the  wall  with  it.    1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  11. 

The  sense  of  the  quotation  from  Judges  is,  that  Samson,  in 
this  hour  of  extreme  peril,  received  divine  aid  so  that  he  broke 
his  bonds,  and  sucessfully  defended  himself.  The  words,  "  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,"  imply,  says  Bush,  "a 
supernatural  influence  raising  the  boclily  or  mental  powers  to 
an  unwonted  pitch  of  energy,"  and  thus  "  enabling  him  to  per- 
form achievements  to  which  his  unassisted  powers  would  be 
entirely  unecpaal."  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
intended  in  this  passage. 

In  1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  the  article  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew, 
60  that  the  proper  rendering  is  ^'■an  evil  spirit  from  God."  It  is 
said  to  l)e  "  from  God,"  says  Keil,'  "  because  Jehovah  had  sent 
it  as  a  punishment." 

'  Tiieoio;;y,  i.  .WO. 

■  Oil  IJestowinent  of  Holy  Si)irit,  .see  Historical  Uiscrcpancios,  "  Time." 

*  On  1  Sara.  xvi.  14. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  143 

This  passage  brings  to  view  God's  sovereignty  and  absolute 
control  in  the  spiritual  as  well  as  in  the  material  world.  Not 
even  "  evil  sjiirits "  go  forth  without  his  permission,  to  exert 
their  influence  upon  the  wicked.  And  he  "has  a  punitive  pur- 
pose in  granting  this  permission.     He  uses  evil  to  chastise  evil. 

ir.    THE   SCRIPTURES.  — Inspiration. 

All  Scripture  iii/tpired.  Some  not  so. 

All  scripture  is  g^iveii  by  inspiration        But  I  speak  this  by  permission,  and 
of  God,  and  is  prolitable.    2  Tim  iii.  16.    not  of  commandment.  .  .  .  But  to  the 

rest  speak  1,  not  the  Lord.    1  Cor.  vii. 
6,  12. 

That  which  I  speak,  I  speak  it  not 
after  the  Lord,  but  as  it  were  foolishly, 
in  this  confidence  of  boasting.  2  Cor. 
xi.  17. 

Many  commentators,  Origen,  Theodoret,  Erasmus,  Luther, 
Grotius,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Hammond,  Adam  Clarke,  Huther, 
Ellicott,  and  Alford,  agi-ee  substantially  with  the  Syriac  Peshito 
in  rendering  the  first  text  thus :  "  Every  scripture  inspired  by 
God  is  also  profitable."  The  theory  involved  in  this  version  is 
suflSciently  elastic  to  allow  Paul,  while  writing  under  the  guid- 
ance of  inspiration,  to  occasionally  introduce,  upon  imimportant 
points,  his  own  uninspired  ojiinion,  —  that  opinion  being  in 
harmony  with  the  general  scope  and  design  of  the  book. 

If,  however,  with  Chrysostom,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Calvin, 
Wolf,  Bengel,  Owen,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  Barnes,  Conybeare, 
Oosterzee,  AVords worth.  Dr.  Hodge  apparently,  and  othei's,  we 
read :  "  Is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable,"  the 
texts  at  the  right  still  admit  of  a  facile  interpretation.  The  first 
of  these  quotations  means,  according  to  Alford  and  Conybeare, 
"  I  am  not  now  speaking  by  way  of  command,  but  merely  ex- 
pressing ray  permission."  If  we  adopt  this  very  natural  inter- 
pretation, the  passage  does  not  touch  the  question  of  inspiration. 

The  meaning  of  the  12th  verse  may,  perhaps,  be  thus  ex- 
pressed :  ••  But  to  the  rest  speak  I,"  that  is,  I  Paul  in  my 
apostolic  office,  speaking,  not  now  from  special  revelation,  but 
under  the  general  supervision  of  the   Holy  Spirit.     "'Not  the 


144  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Lord,"  that  is,  not  Christ  by  any  direct  command  spoken  by 
him,  since  the  question  was  one  witli  whicli  he  did  not  deal  in 
his  recorded  discourses.  Hence,  in  this  case, — as  in  the  language 
of  the  25th  verse,  "  I  have  no  commandment  of  the  Lord,  yet 
I  give  my  judgment,"  —  Paul  was  permitted  to  express  his  own 
judgment  as  to  the  case  under  consideration,  giving  us,  at  the 
same  time,  suitable  notice  that  he  is  speaking  in  his  own  proper 
person.  Yet  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  "judgment" 
he  thus  expressed,  was  in  complete  harmony  with  "  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit." 

Dr.  Arnold,^  referring  to  a  text  of  similar  import,  the  40th 
verse  of  the  same  chapter,  deems  it  a  token  of  God's  "  especial 
mercy  to  us,  that  our  faith  in  St  Paul's  general  declarations  of 
divine  truth  might  not  be  shaken,  because  in  one  particular 
point  lie  was  permitted  to  speak  as  a  man,  giving  express  notice 
at  the  time  that  he  was  doing  so." 

"  I  speak  it  not  after  the  Lord,"  2  Cor.  xi.,  probably  means 
"  not  after  the  example  of  the  Lord. '  That  is.  I  am  constrained 
to  an  apparent  departure  from  that  exami)le.  In  vindication 
of  myself  from  the  unjust  aspersions  of  my  enemies,  I  am 
compelled  to  speak  with,  seeming  boastf ulness,  —  as  it  were 
'•  foolislily."  This  "  glorymg  after  the  flesh"  was  not,  how- 
ever, really  contrary  to  our  Lord's  example,  because  it  origi- 
nated, not  in  love  of  boasting,  but  in  the  necessities  of  the  case. 

AVe  thus  see  that  the  above  texts  may  be  reconciled  upon  the 
basis  of  an  intelligent  and  comprehensive  theory  of  Inspiration. 

Moral  Pvrity. 

Purity  enjoined.  hnpure  ideas  sug;/ested. 

It  must  be  conceded  by  all  candid  persons  that  the  general 
tenor  of  the  Bible  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  purity.  Yet,  it  is 
olijected  that  certain  passages,  particularly  in  the  earlier  books 
and  in  Canticles,  are  calculated  to  excite  impure  thoughts  and 
feelings. 

To  this  we  reply,   1.  Many   of  the   expressions   which   are 

'  Miscellaneous  Works,  p.  287  (Appleton's  edition). 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  145 

deemed  objectionable,  are  found  in  the  Mosaic  Law.  Every 
intelligent  person  is  aware  that  law-books  must  be  very  specific 
and  explicit  in  their  phraseology.  An  examination  of  any  com- 
pilation of  statutes,  or  of  any  standard  work  on  medical  juris- 
prudence, will  be  conclusive  on  this  point.  It  is  not  surprising, 
then,  that  the  Jewish  code  of  laws  contains  some  expressions 
that  seem  coarse.  Without  great  minuteness  and  perspicuity, 
these  statutes  woiUd  have  failed  to  answer  the  designed  end. 

2.  We  must  bear  in  mind  the  great  freedom  of  Oriental 
speech  and  manners.  In  the  impassioned  style  of  thought  and 
expression  prevalent  in  the  East,  there  is  a  license,  a  warmtli, 
a  voluptuousness  even,  which  would  shock  the  fastidious  ears 
of  Occidentals.  Ideas  and  objects  of  which  they  of  the  Orient 
would  speak  with  the  utmost  freedom,  we  should  indicate,  if  at 
all,  by  euphemism  and  circumlocution.  The  Bible  was  written 
by  Eastern  authors,  and  bears  traces  of  its  origin  among  a 
people  whose  customs  and  habits  of  thought  were  widely  dif- 
ferent from  ours.  Upon  this  radical  divergence  are  founded 
many  of  the  so-called  "  indelicate  "  expressions  of  scripture  — 
expressions  wliich  would  strike  an  Oriental  ear  as  perfectly 
chaste  and  proper.  Prof.  Stuart,^  speaking  of  certain  expres- 
sions in  Canticles,  observes,  "  It  is  clear  that  no  indecency  is 
intended,  and  equally  clear,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  no  improper 
feelings  were  excited,  by  tlie  language  in  (juestion,  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  were  originally  addressed."  He  also  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  women  are  excluded,  in  the  East,  from 
public  association  with  men,  l)eing  kept  in  seclusion.  Hence 
greater  freedom  of  speech  was  allowable  than  in  our  mixed 
society.  Besides,  as  Prof.  Cowles  ^  suggests,  the  mode  of  dress 
in  the  East  being  different  from  ours,  certain  parts  of  the  body 
are  there  eJcposed  which  would  not  be  among  us.  Kev.  W.  ]\I. 
Thomson^  says :  "  While  tlie  face  is  veiled,  the  bosom  is  exposed 
in  a  way  not  at  all  in  accordance  with  our  ideas  of  propriety." 

*  Hist,  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  pp.  377,  .■!7S  (Itevised  edition,  p.  oJ'J). 
-  Introd.  to  Com.  on  Cantielcs.  ^  Land  and  Book,  i.  174. 

13 


146  DISCEEPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

An  Oriental  would,  as  appears,  deem  it  no  more  indelicate  to 
praise  the  breasts,  than  the  hair  or  eyes  or  liands  of  a  female. 

3.  Many  expressions  which  are  said  to  offend  the  taste  are 
due  to  the  baldness  and  other  infelicities  of  the  English  version. 
The  Hebrew  is  far  less  objectionable  on  this  score.  Prof. 
Stuart '  observes :  "  The  j^erusal  of  the  original  makes  much 
less  impression  on  me  of  an  exceptionable  kind  than  the  perusal 
of  our  version.  It  is  far  more  delicate,  at  least  to  my  appre- 
hension. It  were  easy  to  exhibit  particulars  which  would 
justify  tliis  statement." 

Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  If  a  half-dozen  heedlessly  rendered  passages 
of  our  English  version  were  amended,  as  easily  they  might  be, 
then  the  Canticle  would  well  consist,  throughout,  with  the 
purest  utterances  of  conjugal  fondness." 

Prof.  W.  H.  Green ^  says:  "There  is  not  the  slightest  taint 
of  impiu'ity  or  immodesty  to  be  found  in  any  portion  of  this 
elegant  lyric."  And  we  think  that  no  one  who  carefully  reads 
the  elegant  translations  of  Zcickler,  Withington,  Cowles,  or 
Ginsburg,  will  dissent  from  this  opinion. 

Predictions. 

Privately  interpreted.  Not  privately  interpreted. 

And  as  ho  sat  upon  the  mount  of  Knowinsj  this  lirst,  that  no  prophpcy 
Olives,  the  disciples  came  unto  him  i)ri-  of  tlio  scriiiture  is  of  any  private  iiiter- 
vately,  sayinjr,  Tell  us.  wlicn  shall  these  pretation:  for  the  prophecy  came  not 
thiu;rs  bey  atid  what  Hitall  be  the  sij;n  iii  old  time  by  the  will  of  man:  but 
of  thv  comiiifr,  and  of  the  end  of  the  holy  men  of  (jod  spike  as  then  ircre 
world?     Matt.  xxiv.  3.  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     2  I'et.  i. 

20,  21. 

The  Greek  corresponding  to  "of  any  private  interpretation" 
is  confessedly  obscure.  The  woi'd  "  cpilusis  "  occurs  in  no  other 
passage  of  the  New  Testament.  Hence  the  dilliculty  in  deter- 
mining its  precise  signification  here.  That,  however,  it  has 
any  referenr-o  to  attempts  to  explain  (he  .scriptures  in  private, 
is  maintained  l)y  no  sehohir. 

We  subjoin  various  renderings  of  tliis  passage.  The  Syriac 
Peshito :  "  No  propliecy  is  an  exposition  of  its  own  text." 

'  Hist,  of  Old  Tost.  Canon,  p.  38-2  (Revised  edition,  p.  357). 
^  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  pp.  1S4,  IHf)  (London  edition). 
^  Tran.siution  of  Zockier,  in  Lunj^e,  p.  102,  note. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  147 

Bishop  Horsley  :  "  Not  any  prophecy  of  scripture  is  of  self- 
interpretatiou,  or  is  its  own  interpreter ;  because  the  scripture 
projihecies  are  not  detached  iiredictions  of  sejiarate,  indepcjident 
events,  but  are  united  in  a  regular  and  entire  system,  all  ter- 
minating m  one  grand  object  —  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel 
and  the  complete  establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom." 

Dr.  John  Owen :  "  Not  an  issue  of  men's  fancied  enthusiasms, 
not  a  product  of  their  own  minds  and  conceptions,  not  an  in- 
terpretation of  the  will  of  God  by  the  understanding  of  man, 
that  is,  of  the  prophets  themselves." 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  :  "  '  Of  any  private  interpretation '  —  pro- 
ceeds from  the  prophet's  own  knowledge  or  invention,  or  was 
the  offspring  of  calculation  or  conjecture.  Far  from  inventing 
the  subject  of  their  own  predictions,  the  ancient  prophets  did 
not  even  know  the  meaning  of  what  they  themselves  wrote." 

Archbishop  Whately :  "  Prophecy  is  not  to  be  its  oivn 
interpreter,  that  is,  is  not  to  have  its  full  sense  made  ouf  (like 
that  of  any  other  kind  of  composition)  by  the  study  of  the  very 
words  of  each  prophecy  itself,  but  it  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
event  that  fulfils  it." 

Dr.  Edward  Robinson :  " '  No  prophecy  of  scripture  cometh 
of  private  interpretation,'  i.e.  is  not  an  interpretation  of  the 
will  of  God  by  the  jn'ojihets  themselves." 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  :  "  No  prophecy  admits  of  a  solution 
•proper  to  its  utterer." 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge:  "What  a  prophet  said  was  not  human, 
but  divine.  Ife  was  not  the  prophet's  own  interpretation  of  the 
mind  and  will  of  God.  He  spoke  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

Alford,  Tholuck,  De  "Wette,  and  Iluther :  '' '  Prophecy  springs 
not  out  of  human  interpretation,'  i.e.  is  not  a  prognostication 
made  by  a  man  knowing  what  he  means  when  he  utters  it." 

Upon  any  reasonable  interpretation,  the  passage  no  more 
precludes  explanations  of  prophecy  given  hi  private  than  tliose 
made  in  pul)lic. 


148 


DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE    BIBLE. 


Kot  always  fulfilled. 
And  Jonah  bpiran  to  enter  into  the 
city  a  day's  journey,  and  lie  cried,  and 
said,  Yet  forty  days,  and  Aineveh  sliall 
be  overthrown.  So  the  ^joople  of  Nin- 
eveli  believed  God,  and  pruclainied  a 
fast,  and  put  on  saclicloth.  from  the 
greatest  of  them  even  to  the  least  of 
them.  .  .  .  And  Ood  saw  their  works, 
that  they  turned  from  their  evil  way; 
and  God  repented  of  the  evil  that  he 
had  said  that  he  wonld  do  unto  them; 
and  he  did  it  not.    Jonah  iii  4,  5,  10. 


Prophecy  sure. 

And  if  thou  say  in  thy  heart.  How 
Khali  we  know  the  word  which  the 
J.ouD  hath  not  spoken?  When  a  proph- 
et speaketh  in  the  name  of  the  Lokd,  if 
the  the  tinner  follow  not,  nor  come  to 
pass,  that  in  the  tliinj;  which  the  Lokd 
hath  not  siioken.  Inif  the  prophet  hath 
spoken  it  i)resuniptuously :  thou  shalt 
not  lie  afraid  of  hira.     Deut.  xviii  21,22. 

We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of 
prophecy:  whereunto  ye  do  well  that 
ye  take  lieed,  as  unto  a  lijrht  that  shin- 
eth  in  a  dark  place.    2  Pet.  i.  19. 

A  passage  previously  cited  (Jer.  xviii.  7-10)  ^  has  a  bearing 
upon  this  point.  That  passage,  however,  refers  to  promises 
and  threatenings,  which  are,  of  course,  conditional.  The  text 
from  Deuteronomy  seems,  on  the  contrary,  to  refer  to  absolute 
predictions,  which  are  in  no  way  contingent  upon  human  conduct. 

Peter  terms  prophecy  "  more  sure  "  than  the  mere  "  voice  " 
which  the  apostles  heard  in  the  mount,  as  "  being  of  wider  and 
larger  reference,  and  as  presenting  a  broader  basis  for  the 
Christian's  trust,  and  not  only  one  fact,  however  important." 

As  to  the  threat  uttered  by  Jonah,  it  turned  upon  a  condition, 
either  expressed  or  implied.  As  Henderson  observes,  "  How- 
ever absolute  the  right  of  God  to  deal  with  mankind  agreeably 
to  his  own  good  pleasure,  his  conduct  is  always  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  manner  in  which  they  behave  toward  him. 
Neither  his  promises  nor  his  threatenings  are  unconditional." 


Divine  promise  absolute. 

In  that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a 
covenant  with  Ahram,  sayinp,  Unto 
thy  seed  have  I  fiiven  this  land,  from 
the  river  of  I'-frypt  unto  the  f^reat  river, 
the  river  Kuplirates.     Gen.  .\v.  18. 

And  1  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  penerations,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee, 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.    Gen.  xvii.  7. 


It  u^iis  conditional. 

And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Be- 
hold, thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers, 
and  this  people  will  rise  up.  and  po  a 
whorinp  after  the  pods  of  the  stranpers 
of  the  land,  whither  they  po  to  he  among 
them  and  will  lursake  mi-,  and  break  my 
covenant  whirh  I  have  nnide  with  them. 
Then  iny  an^er  shall  lie  kindled  apainst 
them  in  that  day,  and  1  will  forsake 
theni,  !ind  1  will  hide  my  liice  from 
them,  and  thev  shall  be  devoured. 
i)eut.  xxxi    1(1,  l7. 

When  ye  have  transpre«sed  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord  your  (iod,  which  he 
commanded  you,  and  have  pone  and 
served  other  poils,  and  bowed  your- 
selves to  them  ;  then  shall  the  anper  of 
the  J^oiiD  be  kindled  apainst  you,  and 
ye  shall  jierish  quickly  from  off  the 
good  land   which   he  hath  piveu  unto 


you.    Josh,  xxiii.  16. 
'  See  pp.  64,  6.'),  of  present  work. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  149 

The  covenant  with  Abraham  has  a  twofold  fulfilment:  a 
partial  one  to  his  literal  posterity — partial,  on  account  of  their 
non-fulfilment  of  the  conditions ;  also,  a  grand  and  glorious 
fulfilment  to  Abraham's  spiritual  seed,  in  bestowing  upon  them 
the  heavenly  Canaan.^  The  ''  covenant,"  though  not  fulfilled 
in  the  primary,  will  be  so  in  the  secondary  and  higher  sense. 

Judah  to  reign  till  Messiah.  Israel's  first  king  a  JBenjamite. 

The   sceptre   shall  not  depart  from  And  afterward  they  desired  a  king: 

Judah,   nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  and  (Jod  gave  unto  them  Saul  the  son 

his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come:  and  unto  of  Cis,  a  man  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 

him  slia/l  the  gathering  of  the  people  be.  Acts  xiii.  21. 
Gen.  xlix.  10. 

First.  It  is  very  far  from  being  certain  that  the  term 
"  Shiloh "  has  any  reference  to  the  Messiah.  Many  critics 
interpret  it  of  "  the  Ephraimite  city  where  the  tabernacle  was 
erected,  after  the  Israelites  had  entered  the  promised  land." 
Here,  during  the  judges'  rule,  the  sanctuary  remained,  God 
revealed  himself,  the  yearly  feasts  were  kept,  and  the  pious 
assembled  as  at  their  religious  centre.  On  tliis  hypothesis,  the 
sense  is,  "  Till  he,  or  o?ie,  come  to  Sliiloh."  That  is,  Judah 
should  be  the  leader  of  the  tribes  during  their  march  through 
the  wilderness,  till  they  arrive  at  Shiloh,  the  centre  of  the 
promised  inheritance.  In  this  view  concur  Bleek,  Bunsen, 
Davidson,  Delitzsch,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Fuerst,  Hitzig,  Kalisch, 
Lipmann,  Luzzatto,  Palfrey,  Rodiger,  Teller,  and  Tuch,  with 
others.^ 

Another  ancient  interpretation  is :  "  Judah  shall  possess  the 
scejjtre  till  he  comes  to  whom  it  belongs."  So,  in  substance, 
the  Septuagint  (according  to  one  reading),  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
the  Peshito,  Onkelos,  one  Arabic,  and  most  of  the  ancient 
versions,  the  Jerusidem  Targum,  Jahn,  Von  Bolilen,  De  Wette, 
Krummacher,  etc. 

Others  render  the  word  variously,  "  Rest-bringer,"  "  Tran- 
quilizer," "  Rest,"  "  Peace,"  "  Peacemaker,"  "  Prince  of  Peace." 
To  this  class  may  be  referred  Bush,  Deutsch,  Gesenius  finally, 

»  Compare  Gal.  iii.  29;  iv.  28;  Ileb.  xi.  16,  39,  40. 
*  See  Article  "  Shiloh,"  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Vol.  iv.  pp.  2997—2999. 
13* 


150  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Hengstenberg,  Hofmann,  Keil,  Knobel,  Kurtz,  Lange,  Luther, 
Rosenmiiller,  Schroder,  Vater,  and  the  Grand  Eabbiu  Wogiie. 
These  all,  with  slight  differences,  agree  in  the  above  inter- 
pretation of  the  term  ''  Shiloh." 

It  is  to  be  added  that  nearly  all  the  ancient  Jewish  com- 
mentators, with  the  early  Christian  writers,  and  sevei'al  modern 
critics,  agree  in  referring  the  term  to  the  Messiah. 

Secondly.  Admitting  the  Messianic  reference,  the  passage  still 
furnishes  little  difficulty.  "  Judah,"  says  Keil,  "  was  to  bear 
the  sceptre  with  victorious,  lion-like  courage,  until,  in  the  future 
Shiloh,  the  obedience  of  the  nations  came  to  him,  and  his  rule 
over  the  tribes  was  widened  into  the  peaceful  government  of 
the  world."  In  the  camp  and  on  the  march,  Judah  took  the 
first  place  among  the  tribes.*  After  the  death  of  Joshua,  Judah 
by  divine  direction  opened  the  war  upon  the  Canaanites;^ 
and  the  first  judge,  Othniel,  came  of  that  tribe.'  Then,  in 
David  and  Solomon,  the  same  tribe  gained  undisputed  pre- 
eminence. In  further  proof,  it  may  be  added  that,  later,  this 
tribe  gave  the  name  "  Jews  "  to  the  whole  people  ;  "  Jehuthm  " 
from  "  Jeliudali,"  t/wd'a/i.*  Moreover,  our  Lord  himself  —  the 
Shiloh,  upon  this  interpretation  —  came  as  a  man  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah.^  So  that  unto  Jesus,  and  in  him  as  Shiloh,  that 
tribe  maintained  an  easy  pre-eminence. 

Any  one  of  the  foregoing  interpretations  obviates  the  alleged 

discrepancy. 

Quotations. 

Orifi'inal passaf/at.  Qtiotcd  hirorrectly. 

ThP  Sjiirit  of  the  I><ir<l  (iOD  f.s-  upon  Tlio  Spirit  of  the  J^ord  is  upon  me, 

mo:    bi.'C!iusp  tlic  i.ouD  liiifli  aii<>int(><l  Ijccausc  no  lintli  anoiiitcil  nic  lo  ])roach 

jiic   to   preach   pood   tidinp;.t   unto   the    the  gospel  to  the  j r;  he  hath  sent  mo 

meek;  lie  liath  sent  me  to  hind  up  the  to  heal  tlie  hroUen-hearteil,  to  ))reacli 

broken-hearted,  to  iiroclaim  libeity  to  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recov- 

the  captives,  and  the   opening  of  tho  oriiifr  of  sijrht  to   the  blind,   to  set  at 

prison  to  thtm  that  are  bound;  to  pro-  liberty  them  that  arc  bruised,  to  preach 

>  Num.  ii.  2,  8-,  vii.  12;  x.  14. 
« Jud^rcs  i.  1-19. 

*  Joshua  XV.  13;  Judy;es  ill.  9. 

*  Compare  Turner's  Compatiion  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  .371-888. 
Also,  Speaker's  (or  Bible)  Commentary,  i.  2.']2,  233  (English  edition). 

<•  llcb.  vii.  14. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


151 


Onrjinal  passagps.  Quoted  incorrecthj. 

claim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.    Luke 

and  the  day  of  veugeauco  of  our  (jod.  iv.  18.  19. 

Isa.  Ixi.  1,  2.  IJeluild,  I  send  my  messenjier  before 

Heboid,  1   will   .send   my  messenger,  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way 

and  he  shall   prepare  the  way  before  before  thee     Mark  i,  2. 
me.    JIal.  iii.  1. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  in  both  these  cases,  the  original  sense  is 
substantially  preserved  in  the  citation.  We  have  elsewhere^ 
remarked  upon  the  relation  which  the  inspired  authors  sustain 
to  one  another ;  and  especially,  with  reference  to  their  use  ol 
similar  phraseology.  A  thorough  investigation  of  the  subje(;t 
will  show  conclusively  that  the  sacred  writers,  in  quoting  from 
one  another,  quote  according  to  the  sense,  and  not  according  to 
the  letter.     They  seldom,  almost  never,  quote  verbatim. 


Condensed. 
Tliat  it  miRht  be  fulfilled  which  wa.s 
spoken  by  E.<aias  the  prophet,  saying. 
The  land  of  Zabulon,  and  the  land  of 
Nephthalim,  bji  the  way  of  the  sea,  be- 
yond Jordan,  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles; 
the  iK'ople  which  sat  in  darkness  saw 
great  light;  and  to  them  which  sat  in 
the  region  and  shadow  of  death  light  ia 
sprung  up.    Matt.  iv.  14-16. 


Or  i'j  Inal  passa'jc . 
Nevertheless  the  dimness  shaU  not  he 
such  as  was  in  her  vexation,  when  at 
the  lirst  he  lightly  afflicted  the  land  of 
Zebulun,  and  the  land  of  Naphtali,  and 
afterward  did  more  grievously  afflict 
Iter  hji  the  way  of  the  sea,  beyond  Jor- 
dan, in  Galilee  of  the  nations.  The 
people  that  walked  in  darkne.ss  have 
seen  a  great  light:  they  that  dwell  in 
the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  upon 
them  hath  the  light  shined.  Isa.  ix  1,2. 

Here  is  no  contradiction,  but  a  condensation.  The  fifteenth 
verse  of  Matthew  is  not  so  much  a  quotation,  as  an  allusion, 
designed  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  reader,  and  prepai'c  the 
way  for  the  quotation  proper. 

The  following  is  an  example  of  substantial  agreement  amid 
sliiiht  circumstantial  variations. 


Forms  of  statement. 

And  he  said.  Go  into  the  city  to  such 
a  man,  and  say  unto  him.  The  Master 
saith,  My  time  is  at  hand;  I  will  keep 
the  passover  at  thy  house  with  my  dis- 
ci|)les.     3Iatt.  xxvi.  18. 

And  he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  dis- 
ciples, and  saith  unto  them,  Go  ye  into 
the  city,  and  there  shall  meet  you  a 
man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water:  follow 
him.  And  wheresDever  he  shall  go  in, 
say  ye  to  the  gooduian  of  the  housr-, 
The  Master  saith,  Where  is  tlie  guest- 
chamber,  where  1  shall  eat  the  passover 
with  my  disciples?    Mark  xiv.  13,  14. 


Expanded. 
And  ho  sent  Peter  and  John,  saying, 
Go  and  prepare  us  the  passover,  that 
we  may  eat.  ...  Behold,  when  ye  am 
entered  into  the  city,  there  shall  a  man 
meet  you,  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water; 
follow  him  into  the  house  where  he 
entereth  in.  And  ye  shall  say  unto  the 
goodman  of  the  house.  The  Mastersaiili 
unto  thee.  Where  is  the  giie.'it-cliambtT, 
where  I  shall  eat  the  [wssover  with  u:y 
disciples?    Luke  xxii.  8,  lU,  11. 


•  See  pp.  G,  7,  of  present  work. 


152  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

A  case  of  this  kind  c;in,  we  thiuk,  furnish  difficulty  to  the 
advocates  of  verbal  inspiration  only. 

Original  passage.  Inexact  version. 

Sacrilice  and  oflerin^  thou  didst  not        "Wherefore,  wlien  he  eometh  into  the 

desire;    mine  ears  hast  thou  opened:    world,  he  saith,  Sacrilice  and  offeriug 

burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  hast  thou    thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  liast  tliou 

not  required.    I's.  xl.  6.  prepared  me:    In   burnt-ofierings  and 

sacrijicts  for  sin  thou  hast  had  no  pleas- 
ure,   lleb.  X.  5,  6. 

The  difficulty,  in  this  case,  is,  that  the  apostle  follows  the 
Septuagint,  "  A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  instead  of  the 
Hebrew,  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened." 

We  may  first  ask:  Wliy  did  the  Septuagint  translators 
commit  such  an  error  in  rendering  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  ? 
Usher,  Semler,  Ernesti,  Michaelis,  Bleek,  and  Liinemann  offer 
the  very  plausible  suggestion  that  the  translators  misread  the 
Hebrew,  and  show  how  this  might  readily  take  place  in  this 
particular  instance.'  Cappell,  Carpzov,  Wolf,  Ebrard,  Tholuck, 
and  Delitzsch  tliink  that  the  translators  deliberately  chose  tliis 
phraseology  by  which  to  render  the  Hebrew,  as  being  more 
intelligible  to  the  reader. 

The  second  question  is :  Why  did  the  apostle  employ  this 
loose  rendering,  instead  of  a  literal  one  ?  In  reply,  it  may  be 
shown  that  the  fundamental  idea  is  retained,  even  in  the  inexact 
phraseology.  The  expression,  "  INIine  ears  hast  thou  opened," 
is,  according  to  liengsteuberg,^  another  way  of  saying,  "  Thou 
hast  made  me  hearing,  obedient " ;  while  the  corresponding 
words,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  are  equivalent  to, 
"  'Hiou  hast  fitted  me  for  willing  service  in  the  execution  of 
thy  designs."  We  thus  sec  that  in  both  cases  the  fundamental 
idea,  the  obedience  of  the  Messiah,  is  preserved.  Therefore,  in 
tliis  deeper  view,  tliere  is  no  dissonance  between  these  passages. 
8u(;h  Ix'ing  the  case,  Paul  was  at  liberty  to  employ  the  j)ara- 
phrastic  rendering ;  especially  since  this  seemed  more  appro- 
priate to  his  purpose,^  as  setting  forth  more  fitly  than  did  the 

*  See  Alford,  on  Ilcb.  x.  5.  -  Com.  on  Ps.  xl.  6. 

*  Warington  on  Inspiration,  p.  95. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  153 

original  utterance  the  incarnation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his 
obedience  xmto  death.^ 

Original.  Wrongly  referred. 

And  I  said  unto  them,  If  ye  think  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 

good,  give  me  my  price :    and  if  not,  spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  sayinjr, 

forbear.     So  they  weighed  f')r  my  price  And  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  i\i  sil- 

WnxXy  pieces  of  silver.     Aud  the  Lord  ver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  valued, 

said  unto  mo,  Cast  it  unto  the  potter:  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel 

a  fToodly  price  that  I  was  prized  at  of  did  value;  and  gave  them  for  the  pot- 

them.    And  1  took  the  \\\\v\y  pieces  of  ter's  tield,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me. 

silver,  and  cast  them  to  the  jiotter  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10. 
the  house  of  the  Lord.    Zech.  xi.  12, 13. 

Here  is  obviously  a  mistake,  either  made  by  Matthew  or 
by  subsequent  transcribers.  The  prophecy  was  uttered  by 
Zechariali,  not  Jeremiah. 

Alford  tliinks  that  Matthew  quoted  from  memory  and  un- 
precisely.  Barnes  suggests  two  explanations.  According  to 
the  Jewish  writers,  Jeremiah  was  reckoned  the  first  of  the 
prophets,  and  was  placed  first  in  the  book  of  the  prophets ; 
thus,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  etc.  Mattliew,  in  quoting  this 
book,  may  have  quoted  it  imder  the  name  which  stood  ^rs<  in 
it ;  that  is,  instead  of  saying,  "  by  the  Prophets,"  he  may  have 
said,  "  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,"  since  he  headed  the  list. 

Or,  the  difficulty  may  have  arisen  from  abridgment  of  the 
names.  In  the  Greek,  Jeremiah,  instead  of  being  written  in 
full,  might  stand  thus,  "  Iriou  "  ;  Zechariali  thus,  ''  Zriou."  By 
the  mere  change  of  Z  into  I,  the  mistake  would  be  made.  The 
Syriac  Peshito  and  several  mss.  have  simj^ly,  "•  by  the  prophet." 
In  Henderson's "  opinion,  the  GreeJi  text  of  the  above  passage 
has  been  corrupted. 

Forms  of  report.  Different. 

This  is  my  beloved  Son.  in  whom  I        Thou  art  my  lieloved  Son,  in  whom  1 
am  well  i)leased.    Matt.  iii.  17.  am  well  pleased.    Mark  i.  11. 

Tlinu  art  my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I 
am  wi'll  ])leased.    Luke  iii.  22. 
Why  are  ve  fearful,   O  ve  of  little        Where  is  your  faith?    Luke  viii.  25. 
faith?     Matt.  viii.  2i; 

Why  are  ye  so  tearful?     How  is  it 
that  ye  have'no  faith  ?    Mark  iv.  40. 

Son  be  of  pood  cheer;  thy  sins  be  for-        Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee.    Mark 
given  thee.    Matt.  ix.  2.  ii.  5. 

Man,    thy   sins    are   forgiven    thee. 
Luke  v.  20. 

>  See  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  xxx.  p.  309.         ^  Minor  Prophets,  pp.  418,  419. 


154  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Forms  of  report.  Different. 

This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews.        This  is  tlie  King  of  the  Jews.    Luke 
Matt,  xxvii.  37.  •  xxiii.  oS. 

The  King  of  tlie  Jews.    Mark  xv.  26.        Jesus  of  Kazareth,  the  King  of  the 

Jews.    Joliu  xix.  19. 

Taking  these  several  cases  into  consideration,  it  is  beyond 
question  that  in  each  the  fundamental  idea  is  preserved  under 
all  the  various  forms.  And  this,  we  think,  is  all,  and  precisely 
what,  the  sacred  writers  intended.  One  might,  indeed,  say  of 
the  last  instance  that  John's  report  includes  the  other  three ; 
so  that,  if  he  is  correct,  the  others  of  course  are  so.  Or,  that, 
since  the  superscription  was  written  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Latin,  Matthew  gives  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew ;  Mark,  a 
condensed  one  of  the  Latin ;  Luke  follows  Mark,  adding,  "  This 
is  " ;  while  John  gives  a  summary  of  the  whole.  But  we  see 
no  necessity  for  sucli  explanations.  It  is  altogether  imi^robable 
that  three  inscriptions,  in  three  different  languages,  should 
correspond  word  for  word. 

The  following  cases  furnish  a  slightly  augmented  difficulty. 

Provide  neith<'r  gold,  nor  silver,  nor       Take  nothing  for  ymir  journey,  nei- 
brass  in  your  purses,  nor  scrij),  for  )/rtHr    thcr  staves  nor  .scrip,  neither  bread, 
journey,    neitlier    two    coat-;,    noitlior    neither  money ;  neither  have  two  coats 
shoes,  nor  ypt  staves  :  for  the  workman    apiece.    Luke  ix.  3. 
is  wortliy  of  liis  meat.     Matt   x.  9,  10. 

And  commaiuicd  tliein  tliat  they 
should  take  nothing  for  their  journey, 
save  a  stalFonly;  no  scrip,  no  bread, 
no  money  in  iluir  j)urse;  but  he  shod 
with  sandals;  and  not  put  on  two 
coata.    Mark  vi.  8,  9. 

Li  this  case  the  trivial  diiSEerences  do  not  affect  the  substantia] 
agreement.  When  we  observe  that  JMatthew  uses  the  term 
"provide,"^  it  is  clear  that  his  meaning  is :  "  Do  not  procure 
any  in  addition  to  what  you  now  have.     Go,  ju.st  as  you  are." 

As  to  the  fact  that  Matthew  forbids  "shoes"  to  be  jirocured, 
while  Mark  albnvs  '*  sandals  "  to  be  worn,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  "  shoes,"  as  the  original  implies,  may  liave  lieen  o'i  a  kind 
such  as  to  cover  the  whole  foot,  "  while  the  "  sandal "  was 
merely  a  sole  of  wood  or  liide,  covering  the  bottom  of  the  foot. 

'  Greek  Krionai,  to  (jet  for  oneself,  to  acquire,  to  procure,  by  pur- 
chase  or  othcnrise.     Robinson,  Lexicon  to  New  Test. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


155 


and  bound  on  with  thongs.*     Thus  the  supposed  discrepancy 
utterly  falls  away. 


Go  into  file  village  over  apainst  you, 
and  straiplitway  ye  shall  tiud  an  ass 
tied,  and  a  colt  with  lier:  loose  them, 
and  bring  tlumi  unto  lue.  And  if  any 
man  say  aujjht  unto  you,  ye  tihall  say. 
The  Lord  hath  need  of  tliem;  and 
straiglitway  lie  will  send  them.  Matt. 
xxi.  2.  3. 


Go  your  way  into  the  village  over 
against  you:  and  as  soon  as  ye  be  en- 
tered into  it,  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied, 
whereon  never  man  sat ;  loose  him,  and 
bring  him.  And  if  any  man  say  unto 
you,  Why  do  ye  this?  say  ye  that  the 
Lord  hath  need  of  him;  and  straight- 
way he  will  send  him  hither.  Mark 
xi  2,  3. 

Go  ye  info  the  village  over  against 
you  ;  in  the  which  at  your  entering 
ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  yet 
never  man  sat :  loose  him  and  bring 
)nm  hither.  And  if  any  man  ask  you. 
Why  do  ye  loose /(«m.'  thus  shall  ye  say 
unto  him,  Because  the  Lord  hath  need 
of  him.    Luke  xix.  30,  31. 

This  is  simply  an  example  of  three  independent  veracious 
witnesses,  each  telling  his  story  in  his  own  way.  And  we 
camiot  feel  the  least  respect  for  that  infinitessimal  criticism 
which  cavils  and  demurs  at  a  case  of  this  kind. 

A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  Why  doth  this  generation  seek  after 

eeeketh  after  a  sign  ;  and  there  shall  no  a  sign?     Verily,  1  say  unto  you.  There 

sign  be  given  unto  it,  but  the  sigu  of  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  this  genera- 

the  prophet  Jonas.    Matt.  xvi.  4.  tion.    Mark  viii.  12. 

May  not  Mark  mean,  there  shall  no  future  sign  be  given  ? 
The  "  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas  "  was  taken  from  the  records 
of  the  past.  At  all  events,  that  kind  of  sign  sought  for  by  the 
Jews  was  peremptorily  refused. 

Other  interesting  examples  of  variant  quotations  are  the 
f  ollowine: : 


Till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
in  his  kingdom.     Matt.  xvi.  28. 

Till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of 
God  come  with  power.     Mark  ix.  1. 

l^et  no  fruit  grow  on  thee  hencefor- 
wi'rd  for  ever.     Matt.  xxi.  19. 

Kor  in  the  resurrection  they  neither 
marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
are  as  the  angels  of  God  iu  heaven. 
Matt.  xxii.  30. 

VoT  when  they  sliall  rise  from  the 
dead,  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given 
in  marriage,  but  are  as  tjie  angels  which 
are  in  heaven.     Mark  xii.  25 

JJut  as  touching  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  liave  ye  not  read  that  which 
was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I 


Till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Luke  Lx.  27. 


No  man  eat  fruit  of  thee  hereafter  for 
ever.    Mark  xi.  14. 

But  they  wliich  shall  be  accounted 
wortliy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither 
marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriaire:  nei- 
ther can  they  die  any  more:  I'or  they 
are  equal  unto  the  angels;  and  are  the 
children  of  (iod,  being  the  children  of 
the  resurrection.     Luke  x.x.  3o,  3G. 

Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even 
Moses  showed  at  the  bush,  when  he 
calleth  the  ImtA  the  God  of  Abraham, 


So  Kohinson's  New  Test.  Lexicon. 


156 


DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 


am  t}ie  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of 
Isaac,  and  t!ie  God  of  Jacob?  God  is 
not  tlie  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
livinjr.     Matt.  xxii.  31,  32. 

And  as  touchinjr  the  dead,  that  they 
rise:  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of 
iloses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spake  unto 
him ;  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob?  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  the  God  of  the  living.  Mark  xii. 
26,  27. 

But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness, 
and  said.  Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypo- 
crites? .Shew  me  the  tribute  money. 
Matt.  xxii.  18,  19. 

But  he.  knowing  their  hypocrisy,  said 
unto  them,  Why  tempt  ye  me?  bring 
me  a  penny,  that  I  may  see  it.  Mark 
xii.  15. 

Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said. 
Matt.  xxvi.  64. 

When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of 
by  Daniel  the  prophet,  stand  in  the 
holy  place  (whoso  readeth,  let  him  un- 
derstand). Then  let  them  which  be  in 
Judaea  flee  into  the  mountains.  Matt. 
x.\iv.  15,  16. 


and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob.  For  he  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living :  for  all  live  unto  him. 
Luke  XX.  37,  38. 


But  he  perceived  their  craftiness,  and 
said  unto  them.  Why  tempt  ye  me? 
Shew  me  a  penny.  Luke  xx.  23,  24. 


And  Jesus  said,  i  am.    Mark  xir.  62. 

But  when  ye  shall  see  the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
the  projihet,  standing  where  it  ought 
not  (let  him  that  readeth  understand), 
then  let  them  that  be  in  Judaea  tlee  to 
the  mountains.    Mark  xiii.  14. 

And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem 
compassed  with  armies,  then  know  that 
the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  Then 
let  them  which  are  in  Judaea  flee  to  the 
mountains.    Luke  xxi.  20,  21. 


Another  striking  case  is  that  relative  to  the  institutiug  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  passages  are  too  long  to  be  quoted  here, 
Imt  may  be  found  in  Matt.  xxvi.  21—29,  Mark  xiv.  18—24, 
Luke  xxii.  14—20, 1  Cor.  xi.  23-2G.  A  no  less  famous  instance 
is  that  of  Peter's  denials  of  Christ,  which  is  discussed  elsewhere.^ 

"When  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  inspiration 
has  reference  primarily  to  ideas  rather  than  to  words  ;  and  that, 
in  each  of  the  above  cases  respectively,  the  fundamental  idea 
is,  notivitJi  standing  the  variations  of  phraseology,  carefully  and 
distinctly  presei-ved,  these  and  similar  instances  furnish  no  real 
difficulty  whatever.'^  In  view  of  these  and  similar  cases,  certain 
eminent  critics  have  felt  warranted  in  deducing  two  inferences: 

\.  That  the  sacred  writers,  in  their  citations  from  one 
another,  provided  the  fundamental  idea  were  retained,  were 
suffered  to  expand,  abridge,  or  paraphrase  the  original  language, 

'  Sec  under  Ilistoiical  Discrepancies,  —  Persons. 

■•'  (,'ompare  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  (April,  1854),  i)p.  71-110. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  157 

and  adapt  it  to  the  object  which  they  respectively  contemplated. 
As  is  observed  by  Prof.  Barrows,'  "  It  is  manifest  that  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  anxious  about  the  verbal 
accuracy  of  the  words  cited.  The  spirit  and  scope  of  a  passage, 
which  constitute  its  true  life  and  meaning,  are  what  they  have 
in  view,  not  the  exact  rendering  of  the  words  from  the  Hebrew 
into  the  Greek." 

2.  That  these  writers  while  divinely  guarded  against  any 
error  in  communicating  religious  truth,  and  against  any  material 
error  in  narrating  matters  of  fact,  were  yet  not  preserved  from 
trivial  errors,  defects  of  memory,  and  the  like,  which  occasionally 
appear  in  their  writings.  In  other  words,  they  were  neither 
rendered  omniscient,  nor  infallible  in  all  respects,  but  were 
imerrmgly  guided  in  the  communication  of  religious  truth. 

Archbishop  WLately,^  speaking  of  certain  cases  in  the  New 
Testament,  says,  "  We  may  plainly  perceive  that,  in  point  of 
fact,  the  sacred  writers  were  not  supernaturally  guarded  against 
trilling  inaccuracies  in  the  detail  of  unimportant  circumstances." 
Again,  he  speaks  of  those  "  trifling  inaccuracies  as  to  an  insig- 
nificant circumstance  which  occiu-  in  the  gospel  history,  and 
which  it  was  not  thought  needful  to  guard  against  by  a  special 
inspiration."  Nearly  the  same  view  is  taken  by  'Mr.  "Waring- 
ton^  who,  however,  concedes  much  more  than  is  necessary. 

Dean  Alford  *  says,  "  There  are  certain  minor  points  of 
accuracy  or  inaccuracy  of  which  human  research  suffices  to 
inform  men,  and  on  which,  from  want  of  that  research,  it  is 
often  the  practice  to  speak  vaguely  and  inexactly.  Such  are 
sometimes  the  conventionally  received  distances  from  place  to 
place  ;  such  are  the  common  accounts  of  phenomena  in  natural 
history,  etc.  Now,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  the  evangelists  and 
apostles  were  not  supernaturally  informed,  but  left,  in  common 
with  others,  to  the  guidance  of  their  natural  faculties.     The 

>  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Vol.  xxx.  p.  306. 

*  Future  State,  appendix  to  Ix;cture  xi. 

^  On  Inspiration,  pp.  72-75  and  238,  i-'JO. 

*  Prolegomena  to  Gospels,  chap,  i.,  sect,  vi.,  par.  14,  15. 

14 


158  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

same  may  be  said  of  citations  and  dates  from  history.  In  the 
last  apology  of  Stejilien,  which  he  sjioke  being  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  with  divine  influence  beaming  from  his  countenance, 
we  have  at  least  two  demonstrable  historical  inaccuracies.  And 
the  occurrence  of  similar  ones  in  the  Gospels  does  not  in  any 
way  affect  the  insph-ation  or  the  veracity  of  the  evangelists." 

The  above  theory  of  inspiration  seems  very  well  set  forth  ui 
the  following  citation  from  the  late  Mr.  Parry :  ^  "  Everything 
which  the  apostles  have  written  or  taught  concerning  Christianity 
—  evei-y  thing  which  teaches  a  religious  sentiment  or  duty — must 
be  considered  as  divinely  true,  as  the  mind  and  will  of  God, 
recorded  under  the  direction  and  guidance  of  his  Spirit.  But 
there  is  no  need  to  ask  whether  everything  contained  in  their 
writings  was  immediately  suggested  by  the  Spirit  or  not;  whether 
Luke  was  inspired  to  say  that  the  ship  in  which  he  sailed  with 
Paul  was  wr(!cked  on  the  island  of  Melita,  or  wliether  Paul  was 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  in  dii-ecting  Timothy  to  bring 
him  the  cloak  which  he  had  left  at  Troas ;  for  these  things 
were  not  of  a  religous  nature,  and  no  insj)iration  was  neces- 
sary concerning  tliem."  AVc  will  simj)ly  add  that  the  view  of 
inspiration  exhibited  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  while  it  very 
well  meets  certain  exigencies  of  the  case,  seems,  nevertheless, 
jicculiarly  liable  to  be  misunderstood  and  abused.  There  is 
ever  far  greater  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  a  lax  than 
from  a  strict  theory  of  inspiration. 

V.    MAN,  in  relation  to  the  Present.— Creation. 

Like  God  by  creation.  This  Ukcnes.t  acquired. 

So  (iod  croatcfl  man  in  liisojort  imapo,  For  (!o(i  d<itli  know  that  in  flic  day 

in   tlift  image  of  God  crcaU'd  lie  liim.  yo  eat  tliereol',  tlieii  yniir  eyes  sliall  b(? 

Gen.  i.  27.  <)|>eiied,  and  ye  sliall  be  as  jrods,  kiiow- 

Jn  the  day  that  tiod  created  man,  in  iiig  pood  and  evil.  .  .  .  And  the  LoKl) 

the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him    Gen.  God  said,  llehold,  tlie  man  is  become  a.s 

V.  1.  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil.  Gen. 

iii.  5,  22. 

A  certain  sceptical  critic,  referring  to  these  two  classes  of 
texts,  remarks :  "  In  the  first,  man  is  made  in  the  image  of 
God;  ill   tlie  st^coiid,  likcnoKS  to  tlui   Deity  comes  to  liiin  by 

'  Quoted  in  .loiiniai  ofSuercil  J.,itcraturc  (April,  18.'54),  pp.  104,  105. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  159 

subsequently  knowing  good  and  evil."     The  first  texts,  however, 

refer  to  man's  spiritual  constitution ;  the  second,  to  his  acquired 

knowledge,  or  his  power  to  discriminate  between  good  and  evil. 

Man's  spirit  is  made  "  in  the  image  "  of  God,  who  is  a  Spirit ; 

man's  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  in  virtue  of  which  he  is,  in 

a  sense,  "  like  God,"  was  acquired. 

Made  in  image  of  God.  Created  male  and  female. 

In  the  image  of  God  made  he  man.        Male  and  female  created  he  them. 
Gen.  ix.  6.  Gen.  v.  2. 

The  first  text  contemjilates  the  soul,  the  immaterial  part ; 

the  second  refers  to  the  material,  physical  organism  of  human 

beings.     Maimonides  says :   "  Made  in  the  image  of    God  in 

respect  to  the  soul  and  imderstanding ;  created  male  and  female 

in  respect  to  corporeal  composition." 

Made  like  God.  None  like  Him. 

And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in       To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  or 
ourimage,  after  our  likeness.  Gen.  i.  26.    shall  I  be  equal?  saith  the  Holy  one. 

Isa.  xl.  25. 

The  first  text  conveys  the  idea  of  resemblance ;  the  second 
of  equality.  "We  may  resemble  God  in  certain  respects  without 
bemg  equal  to  him. 

Sinfulness. 

i\M3  man  icithovt  sin.  Some  are  sinless. 

There  is  nn  man  that  sinneth  not.  Noah  was  a  just  man  njfrf  perfect  in 

1  Kings  viii.  46.  his  generations,  ondNoah  walked  with 

The  i.OKD  looked  down  from  lieaven  God.    Gen.  vi.  9. 

upon   the  children  of  men,  to  see  if  Job  was  perfect  and  upright,  and  one 

there  were  any  that  did   understand,  that  f(>area  God,  and  eschewed   evil, 

anrf  seek  God.     Thy  are  all  gone  aside.  Job  i.  1. 

they  are  ail  together  become  lilthy:  Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the 

there  is  none  that  doetli  good,  no,  not  Loud?  or  who  shall  stand  in  his  lioly 

one.     I's.  xiv.  2,  3  jilace?     Hq  that  hath  clean  hands,  and 

Who  can  say,  I  have  made  my  heart  a  pure  heart;  who  hath  not  litted  up 

clean,  I  am  pure  from  my  sin?     Frov.  his  soul  unto  vanity,  nor  sworn  deceit- 

XX.  9.  fully.     I's.  xxiv.  3,  4. 

For  there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  rre>erve  my  soul;  for  lam  holy.  Vs. 

earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  Ixxxvi  2. 

not.    Keel.  vii.  20.  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure 

Why  callesr  thou  me  pood?  there  is  of  his  heart,  bringeth  forth  that  which 

none  good  but  one,  </(a<  IS  God.    Mark  is  good.    Luke  vi.  45. 

X.  18.  These  things  write  1  unto  you,  that 

There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one.  ye  sin  not.    1  John  ii.  1. 

...  Tor  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  Whosoever  abideth  in  him   sinneth 

of  the  glory  of  God.  J{om.  iii.  18,  23.  not;  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seeu 

If  we  say  that  we   have  no  sin,  we  him,  neither  kmiwu  him.  .  .  .  Wlioso- 

deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  everis horn  ofGod  doth  not  cc.ininitsin; 

in  us.     1  John  i.  8.  for  his  seed  reniiiiueth  in  him;  and  ho 

cannot  sill,  becaiise  he  is  b  iru  of  God. 
1  Jolm  iii.  6,  9. 

Tiie  first  series  of  passages  coiiLcmphites  men  in  tlieir  unrc- 


160  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

generate  state.  These  texts  teacli  the  undeniable  truth  that  no 
mere  human  bemg  has  ever  reached  the  age  of  accountability 
without  violating  the  moral  law,  without  sinning.  They  are 
a  strong,  emphatic  statement  of  the  fact  that,  as  certainly  as 
human  beings  arrive  at  years  of  discretion,  so  certainly  do  they 
become  sinners.  Since  "  all  have  sinned,"  therefore,  "  if  we 
say  that  we  have  no  sin  "  —  that  we  have  kept  ourselves  from 
sin,  and  hence  do  not  need  pardon,  —  "  we  deceive  ourselves." 

Mark  x.  18  simply  asserts  that  no  being  is  absolutely  good 
—  good  per  se  —  except  God.  His  is  absolute,  underived 
goodness ;  men  are  "  good,"  not  in  the  sense  in  wliich  he  is 
good,  but  relatively  and  by  derivation. 

The  citations  of  the  second  series,  except  those  from  1  Jolm 
iii.,  refer  to  men  possessing  the  relative  goodness  just  men- 
tioned. The  texts  excepted  are  interpreted  in  the  following 
manner :  "  Whosoever  sinneth."  Doddridge  says,  "  Who  ha- 
bitually and  avowedly  smneth."  "  Doth  not  commit  sin." 
According  to  Blr.  Barnes,  the  interpretation  should  be:  "Is  not 
wilfully  and  deliberately  a  sinner."  He  may  err,  and  be 
"  overtaken  in  a  fault,"  but  the  misdeed  is  not  intentional. 
"  He  cannot  sin,"  that  is,  it  is  incompatible  with  his  views, 
feelings,  and  purposes.  We  have  here  a  fresh  illustration  of 
that  moral  impossibility  which  has  been  already  mentioned 
more  than  once. 

Andi-ew  Fuller  :  *  "It  appears  that  the  word  '  sin,'  in  these 
passages,  is  of  different  significations.  In  the  former,  it  is  to 
be  taken  properly  for  any  transgression  of  the  law  of  God.  If 
any  man  say,  in  this  sense,  he  has  no  sin,  he  only  proves  him- 
self to  be  deceived,  and  that  he  has  yet  to  learu  what  is  true 
religion.  But  in  the  latter,  it  seems,  from  the  context,  that 
the  term  is  intended  to  denote  the  sin  of  apostasy.  If  we 
were  to  substitute  the  term  '  apostasy '  for  '  sin,'  from  the  sixth 
to  the  tenth  verse,  the  meaning  would  be  clear." 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  calls  attention  to  the  form  of  expression  in 

*  Works,  i.  682.  -  Sacred  Ilermcncutics,  p.  579. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  161 

the  original,  1  John  iii.  9,  and  observes :  "  There  is  an  emphasis 
in  the  verb  '  poiec'     It  denotes  the  habitual  worJcing  of  sin." 

DiJsterdieck^  thinks  that  the  last  citations  from  1  John 
present  the  ideal  standard  which  continually,  so  to  speak,  floats 
above  the  actual  life  of  believers  as  their  rule  and  aim,  and  that 
this  norm  finds  in  such  actual  life  only  a  relative  fulfilment, 
yet  that,  even  in  the  actual  life  of  all  that  are  born  of  God, 
there  is  something  which  in  full  verity  answers  to  the  ideal 
words,  "They  cannot  sin."  That  is,  they  sin  not,  and  cannot 
sin,  just  in  proportion  as  the  new,  divine  life,  unconditionally 
opposed  to  all  sin,  and  manifesting  itself  in  godlike  righteous- 
ness, is  present  and  abides  in  them. 

In  a  word,  the  texts  just  mentioned  are  descriptions  of  the 
ideal  Christian. 

Made  upright.  Made  sinful. 

God  hath  made  man  upright.    Eccl.        Behold,   I  was  shapen  in  iniquity; 
vii.  29.  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me. 

I's.  li.  5. 

The  latter  text  is  simply  an  Oriental  hyperbolical  way  of 
saying  that  he  had  begun  to  sin  at  the  earliest  practicable  period. 
This  language  is  no  more  to  be  pressed  literally  than  is  Job's  " 
declaration  that  he  had  guided  the  widow  "  from  his  mother's 
womb."  That  is,  as  Delitzsch  says,  "  from  earliest  youth,  so  far 
back  as  he  can  remember,  he  was  wont  to  behave  like  a  father 
to  the  orphan  and  like  a  child  to  the  widow."  To  take  the 
language,  in  either  case,  in  a  rigidly  literal  sense,  is  a  gross 
absurdity. 

Bom  sinful.  Infants  are  sinless. 

For  vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  Moreover,  your  little  ones,  which  ye 

man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass's  colt.   Job  said  should  be  a  prey,  and  your  chil- 

xi.  12.  dren,  which  in  tliat  day  had  no  knowl- 

Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  edge  between  good  and  evil,  they  shall 

an  unclean?  not  one.     Job  xiv.  4.  go  in  thither      Deut.  i.39. 

What    is    man,  that    he   should    be  Huttor  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  that 

clean?  and /(*- 7(7/!V/(  i.s  born  of  a  woman,  he  may  know  to  refuse  the  evil,  and 

that  he  .should  be  righteous?  Job  xv.H.  choose  the  good.    For  before  the  child 

The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  shall    know    to    refuse    the    evil,   and 

womb:  tliey  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  choose   the  good,  the   land   that  thou 

be  Ixirn,  speaking  lies.     I's.  Iviii.  .3.  abhorest  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her 

Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  kings.     Isa.  vii.  15,  IG. 

child,  ^i(/  tlie  rod  of  correction  shall  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become 

drive  it  far  from  him.  I'rov.  xxii.  15.  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 

1  Quoted  by  Alford.  2  chap.  xxxi.  18. 

14* 


162  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Bom  sinful.  Ivfants  are  sinless. 

That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  the  kingdom  of  lieaven.  Whosoever 
and  that  which  is  boru  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this 
spirit.    Joha  iii.  6.  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the 

liingdom  of  heaven.  Matt,  xviii.  3,  4. 
Sufler  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is 
the  Icingdom  of  Ciod.  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  cliild, 
shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein.  i..uke 
xviii.  16,  17. 

For  the  children  being  not  yet  born, 
neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil. 
Bom.  ix.  11. 

As  to  the  three  quotations  from  Job,  we  observe,  first,  that 
they  are  couched  in  poetical  and  figurative  language.  Second, 
as  we  have  remarked  elsewhere,  there  is  no  proof  that  Job  and 
his  friends  were  inspired  as  religious  teachers,  as  were  the 
prophets  and  apostles.  That  the  author  of  the  book  was 
"  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  to  record  its  contents,  is  beyond 
doubt ;  but  that  we  are  to  take  the  words  of  Satan,  of  Job's 
wife,  of  the  patriarch  himself,  and  of  his  friends,  as  "  proof- 
texts"  upon  which  to  build  stupendous  structures  of  theology, 
we  cannot  for  a  moment  admit.  Says  Prof.  Stuart,^  *'  Just  as 
if  these  angry  disputants,  who  contradict  each  other,  and  most 
of  whom  God  himself  has  declared  to  be  in  the  wrong  (Job 
xlii.  7-9),  were  inspired  when  they  disputed." 

Ps.  Iviii.  3,  like  li.  5  considered  above,  is  a  poetical  hyperbole. 
The  absurdity  of  a  literal  interpretation  is  obvious  from  the  fact 
that  the  wicked  are  represented  as  "  speaking  lies,"  as  soon  as 
they  are  born.  Literalistic  exegesis  would  make  them  rather 
jirecocious.  The  meaning  plainly  is,  that  they  begin  very  early, 
as  soon  as  possible,  to  speak  lies,  and  to  go  astray. 

The  "  foolishness  "  of  Prov.  xxii.  can  hardly  be  sin,  for  sin 
cannot  be  removed  by  corporal  punisluneut.  A  higher  power 
than  the  ''  rod  "  is  requisite  to  the  expulsion  of  shi,  and  the 
cleansing  of  the  soul. 

As  to  John  iii.  G,  there  are  two  interpretations.  1.  Tliat  given 
by  Meyer:  The  flesh  is  the  material  nature  of  man,  determined 
ethically  by  the  sinful  impulses  of  which  it  is  the  seat.  What- 
'  History  of  Old  Test.,  Canon,  p.  144  (llcvificd  edition,  p.  133). 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  163- 

ever  is  born  from  this  sensuous  and  sinfully  determined  human 
nature  is  a  being  of  the  same  sensuous,  sinfully  constituted 
nature  witliout  the  spiritual  and  ethical  life  which  first  arises 
througli  the  action  of  the  Di\ine  Spirit.  2.  The  language  may 
have  had  a  special  application.  Nicodemus  had  just  suggested 
the  impossibility  of  a  second  natural  birth.  Christ  may  have 
meant  simply,  "  even  were  it -possible,  you  would  gain  nothing 
by  it :  you  would  stUl  be  what  you  now  are."  That  is,  the 
language  may  have  been  designed  to  teach.,  not  that  infants  are 
actually  born  sinful,  but  that  a  second  physical  birth,  were  it 
possible,  would  fail  to  introduce  a  man  into  the  "  kingdom  of 
God." 

At  all  events,  the  theory  that  children  are  born  with  certain 
perverted  tendencies  or  natural  proclivities  to  sin,  which,  though 
not  sinful  per  se,  do  nevertheless  certainly  lead  the  individual 
into  sin  as  soon  as  he  is  capable  of  moral  action,  wUl  satisfy 
the  demands  of  a  reasonable  exegesis. 

Matt,  xviii.  3  asserts  that  we  must  "  become  as  little  chil- 
dren "  —  docile,  loving,  guileless  —  in  order  to  enter  into  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

Luke  xviii.  15  takes  up  the  same  thought  in  respect  to  infants,^ 
and  declares  that  "•  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven " ;  that 
is,  it  is  composed  of  little  children,  and  of  those  persons  who 
possess  the  childlike  character  and  spirit.  It  would  appear, 
therefore,  that  these  two  passages  are  utterly  incompatible  with 
the  theory  that  children  are  born  into  the  world  laden  with 
guih,  permeated  with  and  steeped  in  the  virus  of  sin. 

Rom.  ix.  11  brings  to  view  certain  children  which,  though 
alive,^  had  "  done  neither  good  nor  evil."  Now,  since  sm  is 
the  "  transgression  of  the  law,"  these  children,  having  violated 
no  law,  could  not  possibly  be  sinners.  Nor  do  we  discover 
anything  in  the  accident  of  birth  wliich  could  fix  the  stain  of 

1  Tlic  ori<jinal  word  here  is  different,  and,  as  Alford  says,  "  points  out 
more  distinctly  tlie  tender  age  of  the  children." 
*  Sec  Gen.  xxv.  22,  23. 


164  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

sin  upon  their  souls.  A  fair  inference,  then,  is  that,  since  they 
were  not  sinners  before  birth,  they  did  not  become  such  at  birth, 
nor  until  they  wilfully  violated,  to  some  extent,  the  law  of  God. 
Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  case  of  these  children  was,  in 
respect  to  this  exemption,  an  exceptional  one.  Hence  the 
theory  that  infants  come  into  the  world  actually  sinful  or  guilty 
would  not  seem  to  be  supported  either  by  reason  or  by  the 
testimony  of  Scripture. 

Children  of  wrath  naturally.  Keep  the  law  by  nature. 

And  were  by  nature  the  children  of       For  when   the  Gentiles,  which  have 
wrath,  even  2l&  others.    Kph.  ii.  3.  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things 

contained  in  the  law,  these'  having  not 
the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves. 
Which  shew  the  work  of  the  law  writ- 
ten in  their  hearts.    Eom.  ii.  14, 15. 

Andrew  Fuller :  The  phrase  "  by  nature  "  in  the  latter  refers 
to  the  inde  of  action ;   but  in  the  former  to  the  cause  of  it. 

Dr.  Ilodge  :  "  '  By  nature,'  in  virtue  of  their  internal  constitu- 
tion, not  by  external  instruction."  Kiickert :  "  We  were  born 
children  of  wrath ;  i.e.  such  as  we  were  from  our  birth,  we  were 
exposed  to  the  divine  wrath,  is  the  true  sense  of  these  words." 

Suicer  *  renders  the  word  "  phusis,"  in  Eph.  ii.  3,  "  truly, 
incontestable."  The  Syriac  Peshito  reads :  "•  And  were  alto- 
gether  the  children  of  wrath."  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  and  Bishop 
Ellicott  doubt  wliether  there  is  in  this  text  any  du'ect  assertion 
of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

We  take  the  sense  to  be,  "  And  were,  in  our  unregenerate 
condition,  the  children  of  wrath."  In  this  interpretation,  Mr. 
Barnes  concurs.  Or,  a  different  explanation  may  be  given. 
Tlie  term  "  nature  "  may  here  denote  our  natural  proclivities 
and  tendencies  to  sin  ;  the  idea  being  that,  in  consequence  of 
the  development  of  these,  we  were  the  children  of  wrath. 

Upon  any  reasonable  explanation,  the  words  "  were  by  nature 
the  children  of  wrath  "  do  not  imply  that  we  were  born  sinning 
or  sinful.     JMan  is  "by  nature"  a  talking  being,  yet  he  was  not 

'  Thesaurus,  Vol.  ii.,  col.  1475.  Similarly  Grotius  and  several  early 
writers.    Compare  the  German  "  naturlich." 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  165 

necessarily  lorn  talking.  We  are  "by  nature"  offspring-loving 
beings,  yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  were  born  in  the 
actual  exercise  of  this  "  natural  affection."  So  the  fact  that  we 
are  sinners  "by  nature"  does  not  necessitate  that  we  were 
sinners  before,  or  even  at  birth,  but  merely  that  we  are  such  as 
the  result  of  om*  natural  proclivities  to  evil. 

All  made  sinners  by  Adam.  Made  righteous  by  Christ 

Wlierefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  Even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one 

into  the  worUi.  and  deatli  by  sin;  and  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 

so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's 

all  have  sinned.  . . .  Iherefore,  as  by  the  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 

ofleuce  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 

men  to  condemnation.  Rom.  v.  12,  18.  be  rnade  righteous.    Kom.  v.  18,  19. 

There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  two  texts.  (1)  That 
the  "  free  gift "  is  adapted  to  all  men,  and  has  a  tendency  to 
restore  them  to  the  divine  favor.  Barnes  :  " '  Came  upon  all 
men'  —  was  with  reference  to  all  men  ;  had  a  bearing  upon  all 
men ;  was  originally  adapted  to  the  race."  John  Taylor : 
"  The  drift  of  the  ajwstle's  conclusion  is  to  show  that  the  Gift, 
in  its  utmost  extent,  is  free  to  all  mankind."  Calvin  :  The 
apostle  makes  the  grace  "  common  to  all,  because  it  is  offered 
to  all,  not  because  it  is  in  fact  applied  to  all." 

(2)  That  the  words  "  all  "  and  "  many,"  in  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  verses,  are  each  used  in  two  senses,  a  wider  and 
a  narrower.  Dr.  Hodge  thinks  that,  m  the  first  clause  of  each 
verse,  ''  all  "  means  all  who  are  connected  with  Adam  ;  in  the 
second  clause,  all  who  are  connected  with  Christ.  Alford  says 
that  both  classes  of  men  meet  in  the  word  "  many."  A  com- 
mon term  of  quantity  is  found  for  both ;  the  one  extending 
to  its  largest  numerical  interpretation  ;  the  other  restricted  to 
its  smallest.     In  either  view,  there  is  no  discrepancy. 

Repentance. 

Man's  own  act.  God's  gift. 

Repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel.        To  pi ve  repentance  to  Israel,  and  for- 
JIark  i.  15.  giveness  of  sins.     Acts  v.  31. 

Kxcept  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  (Jentiles 
perish.     Luke  xiii.  6.  granted    reiientance    unto   life.     Acts 

Kow    commandeth    all    men    every    xi.  IS. 
where  to  repent.    Acts  xvii.  30.  If  God  peradventure  will  give  them 

repcntanci^  to  the  acknowledging  of  tbe 
truth.    2 Tim.  ii.  26. 


166  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

The  word  "  repentance  "  is  used  in  two  senses.  In  the  first 
series,  it  denotes  the  act  of  repenting;  in  the  second,  the 
opportunity,  motives,  and  helps  of  that  act.  Ilackett :  "  To 
give  repentance^  i.e.  the  grace  or  disposition  to  exercise  it." 
De  Wette :  "  The  opportunity  to  repent,  or  the  provision  of 
mercy  which  renders  repentance  available  to  the  sinner." 

Megeneration. 

Man  active.  -                 Passive. 

Circumcisp  therefore  the  foreskin  of  And  the  Lord  tliy  (jod  will  circura- 

yoiir  heart,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked,  cise   thy  heart,  and  the  heart  <if  thy 

Dent.  X.  IG.  seed,  to  lovo  the   Lord  thy  God  with 

Wa<h  you,  make  you  clean  :  put  away  all  thy  heart.    Deut.  xxx.  6. 

the  evil   of  your  "doings  from  before  Wash  me  thoroufrhly  from  mine  ini- 

mino  eyes.     Isa.  i.  10.  quity,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin. 

(» .leriisalem,  wash  thine  heart  from  I's.  li.  2. 

wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved.  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 

How  Ion?  shall  thy  vain  thoughts  lodge  you,  and   ye   shall    he   clean:  from  all 

within  tiiee?    Jer.  iv.  14.  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols. 

Make  you  a  new   heart  and  a  new  will  I  cleanse  you    A  new  heart  also  will 

spirit:  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  liouse  of  I  give  you,  and  anew  spirit  will  I  put 

Israel?     Kzek.  .xviii.  ;U.  within  you.     Kzek.  xxxvi,25,  26. 

Turn  ye  unto  me      Zecli.  i.  3.  Turn  thou  us  unto  thee.  ()  Lord,  and 

Awake,  tlinu  that  sleepest,  and  arise  we  shall  be  turned.     Lam.  v  21. 

from  the  di'ad.     Eph.  v.  14.  But  dod  when  we  were  dead  in  sins, 

Ye  have  j)Ut  off  the  old  man  w-ith  his  liathriuickened  us  together  withChrist; 

deeds;  and  have  put  on  the  new  man And  hath  raised  it.t  up  together.  . . . 

Col.  iii.  9, 10.  Kor  we  are  his  workmanship,  created 

in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.    Ki)h. 
ii.  5,  6,  10. 

The  simi)le  fact  is,  that  man  is  both  active  and  passive  in 
regeneration.  The  first  series  of  texts  brings  to  view  his 
activity ;  the  second,  his  passivity.  IMan  is  active  in  thinking 
upon  the  truth,  in  exercising  Ins  sensibilities  in  relation  to  it, 
and  in  giving  up  his  heart  to  God;  he  is  passive  in  that  he  is 
acted  upon  by  the  truth,  and  also  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  both 
acts  and  is  acted  upon.  God  does  not,  so  far  as  we  know, 
regenerate  beings  in  a  state  of  insensibility  or  indifference. 
There  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  co-operation  of  the  divine  agency 
and  the  human  in  the  regeneration  of  the  soul.  As  Prof. 
Phelps*  has  said:  "We  cannot  mistake  in  recognizing  as 
another  law  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  his  work  shall  be  concurrent 
with  the  will  of  the  regenerate  soul  itself.  Sanctification  is  a 
co-operative  process.     It  may  be  suspended  by  i-esistancc,  and 

'  Xlic  Xcw  Ulnli,  pp.  -243,  2U. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  167 

accelerated  by  obedience  to  the  divine  impulses.  . . .  Not  by  the 
breadth  of  a  hair  will  the  sovereignty  of  God  invade  the 
enclosure  of  that  soul's  freedom.  The  soul  itself,  in  its  own 
individuality,  is  the  thing  he  would  save.  Its  own  love  is  the 
thing  he  craves.  Its  own  submission  is  the  right  he  claims. 
Its  own  chosen  obedience  is  the  service  he  requires." 

This  same  idea  of  co-operation  is  expressed  in  the  words 
of  Paul ;  ^  "  Work  out  your  own  salvation,  with  fear  and 
trembUng ;  for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 

trustification. 

By  Faith.  By  Works. 

Therefore  by  tlio  deeds  of  the  law,  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are 

there  shall  no  flesh  be  justitted  in  his  just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the 

sight.  ...  We  conclude,  that  a  man  is  law  shall  be  justifiei.     Uoni.  ii.  13. 

justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  What  do/li   it    profit,   my   brethren, 

the  law.     Kom.  iii.  20.  28  thoujrh  a  mSn  say  he  hath  faith,  and 

For   if   Abraham   were   justified   by  have  not  works?  can  faith  save  him?  ..  . 

works,  he  bath  ?t'/(ereo/ to  glory,  but  not  Faith,  if  it   hath   not  works,   is   dead, 

before  God.     Itoni.  iv  2.  beiiij;  alone.  ...   Was  not  Abraham  our 

Knowinp-  that  a  man  is  not  justified  father  justified  by  works,  when  he  had 

by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  offered  Isaac  liis  son  upon  the  altar?  .. . 

faith  of  Jesus  Christ.     Gal.  ii.  16.  Seest  thou  how  faith  wroujrht  with  his 

But  that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  works,  and  by  works  was  faith    made 

law  in  the  si<rht  of  (iod,  it  is  evident:  perfect?  .  .  .  Ye  see  then  how  that  by 

for,  The  just  shall  live  by  faith.     And  works  a  man  is  justified,  and   not  by 

the  law  is  not  of  faith  :  but.  The  man  faith  onlv.  .  .  .  For  as  the  body  with- 

tliat  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them.  Gal.  out  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faitli  without 

iii.  11,  12.  works  is  dead  also.    Jas.  ii.  14,  17,  21, 

22,  24,  26. 

There  is  no  collision  between  Paul  and  James.  They  merely 
present  different  aspects  or  I'elations  of  the  same  great  truth. 
Paul  is  arguing  against  self-righteous  religionists,  who  rely  for 
salvation  ujion  external  moraUti/,  upon  mei'e  toorha ;  James 
addresses  those  who  maintain  that,  provided  a  man's  belief  is 
correct,  it  matters  little  what  his  conduct  is ;  that  a  *'  bare 
assentive  faith  is  sufficient  for  salvation,  without  its  living  fruits 
in  a  holy  life."  In  a  word,  Paul  is  combating  Pharisaism ; 
James,  Antinomianism.  One  asserts :  "  Works  are  good  for 
nothing  except  as  they  spring  from  faith";  the  other  responds: 
"  Faith  is  of  no  value  except  as  it  produces  works."  Both 
together  affirm  the  inseparable  connection  and  luialterable  rela- 

'  Phil.  ii.  12,  13 


168  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

tion  of  faith  and  works  as  cause  and  effect.  John  Taylor  of 
Norwich :  "  The  apostle  James  manifestly  speaks  of  works 
consequent  to  faith,  or  of  such  works  as  are  the  fruit  and 
product  of  faith.  Whereas,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  and  rejects 
works  considered  as  antecedent  to  faith.  According  to  St. 
Paul,  Abraham's  justification  refers  to  his  state  before  he  be- 
lieved, or  when  he  was  ungodly ;  according  to  St.  James,  to  his 
state  after  he  believed,  or  when  faith  wrought  with  his  works." 

AYhately :  "  Abraham  is  cited  by  Paul  as  an  example  of  a 
man  ' justified  by  faith'  and  by  James,  of  a  man  ' justified  by 
works ' ;  the  faith  being  manifested  by  the  works  which  sprung 
out  of  it."' 

Andrew  Fuller :  "  Paul  treats  of  the  justification  of  the 
ungodly,  or  the  way  in  which  sinners  are  accepted  of  God,  and 
made  Jieirs  of  etern'al  life.  James  speaks  of  the  justification 
of  the  godly,  or  in  what  way  it  becomes  evident  that  a  man  is 
approved  of  God.  The  former  is  by  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  the  latter  is  by  works." 

Stuart :  "  Paul  is  contending  with  a  legalist,  i.e.  one  who 
expected  justification  on  the  ground  of  his  own  merit.  James 
is  disputing  with  antinomians,  viz.  such  persons  as  held  that 
mere  speculative  belief  or  faith,  unaccompanied  by  works,  was 
all  which  the  gospel  demands." 

Alford  and  De  Wette  understand  "  faith,"  as  used  by  James, 
to  denote  the  result  of  the  reception  of  the  word,  especially  in 
a  moral  point  of  view ;  as  used  by  Paul,  as  consisting  in  trust 
on  the  grace  of  God  revealed  in  the  atoning  death  of  Christ. 

Sanctificatlon. 

Throuf/h  the  truth.  Throur/h  the  Spirit. 

Sanctify    tlipm    through    thy  truth.        Elect  according  to   the  fore-knowl- 
John  xvii.  17.  edge  of  God  the  Vathor,  throu^li  sanc- 

tilication  of  the  Spirit.    1  Tet.  i.  2. 

They  were  sanctified  by  the  truth  applied  by  the  Spirit.  The 
two  were  instruments  in  the  work  of  sanctification.  In  the  first 
passage,  Alford  employs  the  preposition  "in,"  since  the  truth 
is  the  element  in  which  the  sanctifying  takes   place.     As  to 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  169 

the  second  text,  the  word  "  spirit "  may  refer  either  to  the  be- 
liever's own  spirit,  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Alford  takes  the 
latter  signification ;  Beza  says,  "  Vel  Spiritus  Sanctus,  vel  anima 
quae  sanctificatur."  The  interpretation,  "  sanctification  by  the 
Spirit,  in  the  truth,"  meets  the  requirements  of  both  texts  alike. 
The  fuUer  expression,^  "  Through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth,"  conveys  the  same  idea. 

Perfection. 

Christians  are  perfect.  Paul  was  not  perfect. 

Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  If  by  any  means  I  might  attain  unto 

Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     Not  as 

Matt.  V.  48.  though  I  had  already  attained,  either 

Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  be  per-  were  already  perfect.    I'hil.  iii.  11,  12. 
feet,  be  thus  minded.    I'hil.  iii.  15. 

The  term  "  perfect "  is  used  here  in  different  senses.  In 
Matthew  it  means  complete,  all-embracing,  godlike  in  love  of 
others.  lu  Phil.  iii.  15  it  means  mature  in  Christian  life.  In 
the  tests  at  the  right  it  probably  refers  to  the  completion  of 
Paul's  life  by  martyrdom.  Clement  of  Alexandria  applies  the 
term  "  perfection,"  "  teleiosis,"  to  the  martyrdom  of  believers. 
He  says :  "  We  call  martyrdom  '  perfection,'  '  teleiosis,'  not 
because  man  receives  it  as  the  completion  of  life,  but  because  it 
is  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  love."  Several  other  early 
writers  use  the  word,  and  its  derivatives,  in  a  similar  sense.^ 
Hence  Paul's  meaning  may  be  :  "  My  Christian  career  has  not 
yet  culminated  in  martyrdom." 

Many  critics,  however,  think  that  he  is  alluding  to  the  games 
or  races  of  the  ancients,  and  says  figuratively  that  he  —  as  a 
Christian  —  had  not  completed  his  course,  and  arrived  at  the 
goal,  so  as  to  receive  the  prize. 

Final  Perseverance. 

Impossible  to  fall  from  grace.  Some  (Jo  fall  from  grace. 

And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  Rut  when  the  righteous  turneth  awav 

and   they   shall   never   perish,   neither  from  his  righteousness,  and  coniinittelii 

shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  baud,  iniciuity,  and  doeth  according  to  all  the 

John  .\.  28.  ahouiiuations    that    the    wicked     man 

For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  doeth,  sliall  he  live?    All  his  righteous- 

did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  ness  that  be  bath  done  shall  not  be 

'  2  Thess.  ii.  1.3. 

°  Comp.  Luke  xiii.  32 ;  where  the  Pcshito  reads  "  shall  be  consummated." 
15 


170  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Impossible  to  fall  from  grace-  Some  do  fall  from  graee. 

imajre  of  his  Son,  that  he  miiht  be  mentioned:  in  liis  trespass  that  he  hath 
the  tirst-born  among  many  brctliren.  trespassed,  anil  in  liis  sin  that  he  )iath 
iloreover,  wliom  lie  did  predestinate,  sinned,  iu  them  shall  he  die.  £zek. 
them    h<>    also   called:   and   whom    he    xviii.  24. 

oiled,  them  he  also  justified :  and  Those  that  thou  gravest  me  I  have 
wliom  lie  justilied,  them  he  also  glori-  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the 
tied.  .  .  For  I  am  i)ersuaded,  that  son  of  perdition.  John  xvii.  12 
neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who 
principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tasted 
present,  nor  things  to  cnme,  nor  height,  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made 
nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  partakers  of  the  Holy  (.ihost.  and  have 
he  able  to  se|>arate  us  from  the  love  of  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the 
Ciid  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  powers  of  the  world  to  come,  if  they 
iJom.  viii.  2'J,  30,  o8,  39.  shall  fall   away,  to  renew  them  again 

unto  re|)entance;  seeing  they  crucify 
to  themselves  tlie  Sou  of  (Jod  afresh, 
and  put  him  to  an  open  shame,  lleb. 
vi.  4-6. 

For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we 
have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacri- 
lice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  look- 
ing for  of  judgment  and  liery  indig- 
nation, which  shall  devour  the  ad'er- 
saries.  Ho  that  despised  Jloses'  law, 
died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three 
witnesses:  of  how  much  sorer  punish- 
ment, suppose  ye.  shall  he  be  thought 
worthy,  who  hath  trodden  tinder  foot 
the  Son  of  (iod,  and  hath  counted 
the  blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith 
ho  was  sanctilied.  an  unholy  thing,  and 
hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of 
grace?  . .  .  Hut  we  are  not  c)f  them  who 
draw  back  unto  jierdition.  lleb.  x. 
26-29,  39. 

For  if  after  they  have  escaped  the 
pollutions  of  the  world  through  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour 
.  Jesus  Christ,  they  are  again  entangled 
therein,  and  overcome,  the  latter  end 
is  worse  with  them  than  the  beginning. 
For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not  to 
have  known  the  way  of  righteousness, 
than,  alti'r  they  have  known  it,  to  turn 
frdin  tlu'  liolv  commandment  delivered 
unto  them.   ■2ret.  ii.  21,  22. 

The  first  sories  does  not  tench  the  impossibility  of  falling 
from  graee,  but  merely  th(^  certainty  that  this  will  not  occur. 
The  auxiliary  "shall"  is  too  strong  in  tlie.se  passages.  The 
original  expresses  futurition,  thus;  '' will  any  pluck  them  out," 
"  will  he  aide  to  separate  u.s,"  etc. 

The  seeonrl  series  may  hc  taken  as  mere  hypotheses  —  sup- 
positions introduced  for  argument's  sake.  Such  figures  of 
speech  are  very  connnoii.  Thus,  in  (lal.  i.  S,  Paul  introduces 
this  livpothesis  :  "Hut  though  we,  or  ;in  angd  from  heaven, 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  ihau   thai    wliiih  we  have 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  171 

preached  unto  you,  let  him  he  accursed."  lie  does  not,  of 
course,  mean  to  alfirra  that  an  "  angel  from  heaven  "  ever  did, 
or  would,  preach  a  false  gospel ;  he  merely  says :  "  On  the 
supposition  that  one  should  do  it."  In  1  Cor.  xiii.  1-3,  we 
have  three  of  these  hypotheses,  or  "  suppositions  without  regard 
to  fact,"  as  they  may  be  termed. 

The  hypothetical  nature  of  the  quotation  from  Ezekiel  is 
clearly  brought  out  in  the  parallel  passage,  Ezek.  xxxiii.  13  : 
'•  When  I  shall  say  to  the  righteous  that  he  shall  surely  live ; 
if  he  trust  to  his  own  righteousness,"  etc. 

In  John  xvii.  12,  some  construe  thus:  "None  of  them  is 
lost ;  but  the  son  of  perdition  is  lost."  This  interpretation 
excludes  Judas  from  the  number  of  those  who  were  "given  "  to 
Christ.  Otherwise,  if  Judas  is  included,  it  may  be  said  that 
those  of  whom  Chi'ist  spoke  were  given  simply  for  the  "  ministry 
and  apostleship";^  and  that  nothing  more  is  meant  here. 

The  quotations  from  Hebrews^  and  Peter  are  so  obviously 
hypothetical  that  no  comment  is  needed.  Alford  has  the 
peculiar  remark :  "  Elect  and  regenerate  are  not  convertible 
terms.  All  elect  are  regenerate ;  but  all  regenerate  are  not 
elect.     The  regenerate  may  fall  away  ;  the  elect  never  can." 

Barnes,  on  Ileb.  vi.  6 :  "It  is  not  an  affirmation  that  any 
had  actually  fallen  away,  or  that,  in  fact,  they  tcoidd  do  it ;  but 
the  statement  is,  that  on  the  supposition  that  they  had  fallen 
away,  it  would  be  impossible  to  renew  them  again. 

It  may  be  added  that  Calvinistic  autliors  interjjret  the  latter 
series  of  texts  as  referring  to  persons  who  have  been  con- 
siderably enlightened,  but  not  truly  converted  ;  who  have  never 
really  participated  in  the  spiritual  life.  Arminian  authors,  and 
Alford  with  them,  refer  these  texts  to  persons  who,  after  being 
regenerated,  have  deliberately  apostatized  from  Christ  and  his 
religion.  The  alleged  discrepimcy  is  easily  removed  by  either 
method  of  interpretation. 

'  Acts  i.  25. 

•  Schoctrircn  gives  a  peculiar  turn  to  Ilcb.  vi.  G.  See  Ilorac  Ilebraicae, 
pp.  954-956. 


172  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

Christians  not  destroyed.  May  he  destroyed. 

And  I  pivp  unto  them  eternal  life;        Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
and  they  shall  never  perish.  Joliux.  28.    whom  Clirist  died.    Kom.  xiv.  1.5. 

And  throufrh  thy  knowledge  shall  the 
weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ 
died?    1  Cor.  viil.  11. 

These  cautions  and  admonitions  of  the  apostle  are  one  of 
the  effective  means  wliich  God  uses  in  preventing  the  destruc- 
tion of  weak  believers. 

The  "  called  "  all  saved.  Some  perish. 

Moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,        For  many  be  called,  but  few  chosen, 
them  he  also    called:    and  whom   he    Matt.  xx.  16. 
called,    them    he    also   justified:    and 
whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glori- 
fied.    Kom.  viii.  30. 

The  word  "  call,"  in  the  first  case,  signifies  the  "  effectual 
call,"  such  as  secures  its  own  acceptance,  and  the  salvation  of 
the  "■  called."  In  the  second  case,  the  term  denotes  the  general 
invitation  of  the  gospel,  extended  to  all  men. 

liifflifeous,  —  earthly  lot. 

No  evil  befalls  the  Godly.  Evil  be/alls  them. 

There   shall  no  evil  happen  to  the        So  went  Satan  forth  from  the  pres- 

just.     I'rov.  xii.  21.  ence  of  the  Loud,  and  smote  .Job  with 

And  who  is  he  that  will  harm  you,  if    sore  boils  from  the  sole  of  his  foot  unto 

ye  be  followers  of  that  which  is  good?     his  crown.     Job  ii.  7. 

1 1'et.  iii.  13.  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chast- 

eneth,  and  scourjreth  every  son  whom 
he  receiveth.    lieb.  xii.  6. 

The  meaning  is,  that  no  permanent  or  ultimate  evil  befalls 
the  good.  All  apparent  evils  which  overtake  them  are  but 
temporary,  and  result  in  high  and  lasting  good.  "  All  things  " 
—  the  afilictions  which  came  upon  Job  and  the  chastisements 
which  God  infiicts  upon  his  people  —  "work  together  for  good 
to  them  that  love  God."'  Not  seldom  the  grown-up  man  is 
profoundly  grateful  for  the  disciplinary  chastisement  received 
from  parents  and  teachers  in  his  childhood.  So  the  Christian, 
looking  back  from  heaven,  will  doubtless  tlwnk  God  for  the  trials 
and  sufferings  of  this  earthly  life,  as  for  blessings  in  disguise. 

Worldly  'jood  and  prosperity.  Worldly  niisery  and  destitution. 

And  the  Loiiu  was  with  Joseph,  and        Tliere  be  just  men,  nnto  whom  it  liap- 

hi,' wasa  prosperous  man.  (.en.  .\.\.\i.\.2.  peneth   according  to  the  work  of  the 

.So  the  LouiJ  lilcsscd  the  latter  end  of  wicked      Keel.  viii.  14. 
Job  more  thuu  his  beginning.  Job  xlii.        And  ye  shiill  be  hated  of  all  men  for 

12.  my  name's  sake.    Luke  xxi.  17- 

'  Compare  liom  viii.  28,  and  Heh.  xii.  11. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  173 

Worldhj  good  and  prosperity.  Worldbj  mixenj  and  destitution. 

His  leaf  also  shall  not  vvithor;  and  They  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn 

whatsoever  he  doeth  shall  prosper.  I's,  asunder,  were  tempted,  were  slain  with 

i.  3  the  sword:    they   wandered   about   in 

They  that  seek  the  Lord  shall  not  sheep-skins,  and  ffoat-skins;  being  dcs- 

want  any  pood  l/iinr/.     I's.  xxxiv.  10.  titute,  afflicted,  tormented.  Heb.  xi..37. 

Trust  in  the  Loud,  and  do  good;  so  These   are  they   which   came  out  of 

Shalt  thou  dwell  in  the  land,  and  verily  great  tribulation.    Kev.  vii.  14. 
thou  shalt  be  fed.    Ps.  xxxvii.  3. 

The  first  texts  lay  down  the  general  principle  that  righteous- 
ness has  a  tendency  to  ensure  prosperity  in  worldly  matters ; 
yet  they  do  not  assert  that  this  result  invariably  follows.  We 
say,  "  Honesty  is  the  best  policy,"  yet  we  know  that  some 
rascals  grow  rich,  while  some  honest  men  never  succeed  in 
busicess.  Righteousness,  because  it  2)romotes  temperance,  in- 
dustry, frugality,  and  all  other  worthy  qualities,  tends  normally 
to  worldly  prosperity. 

As  to  Joseph  and  Job,  neither  of  them  escaped  very  sore 
trials.  The  first  citation  from  Psalms  is  a  poetical  statement 
of  the  principle  that  righteousness  is  conducive  to  worldly 
prosperity ;  the  second  asserts  that  no  actual,  ultimate  good 
will  be  wanting  to  the  righteous. 

The  second  series  sets  forth  certain  apparent  exceptions  to 
the  general  rule,  and  illustrates  the  truth  that,  owing  to  the 
wickedness  of  the  world,  the  pious  encounter  hostility  and  per- 
secution in  some  form. 

The  first  text  of  this  series  asserts  that,  in  some  cases,  an 
apparently  similar  fate  attends  the  evil  and  the  good.  But,  as 
Ilengstenberg  says,  this  equality  of  result  is  only  an  external 
and  partial  one ;  while  the  final  issue  separates  the  righteous 
from  the  wicked. 

The  two  next  passages  refer  to  the  disciples  and  the  ancient 
martyrs.  The  text  from  Revelation  implies  that  the  righteous 
enter  heaven  through  "  great  trials "  of  various  kinds.  The 
combined  passages  teach  that,  while  righteousness  tends  nor- 
mally to  secure  earthly  prosperity ;  yet,  in  certain  cases,  this 
tendency  is  temporarily  interrupted  by  certain  distui'bing  in- 
fluences. 

15* 


174  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Worldly  prosperity,  a  reioard.  A  curse. 

If  thou  return  to  tlip  Almighty,  thou  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures 

Blialt  be  built  up,  thuu  slialt  put  away  upouCarth.  ...  For  where  your  treasure 

iniquity    far    from    tliv    tabernacles,  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also.    Matt. 

Then  shalt  thou   lay  up  prold  as  dust,  vi.  lU,  21. 

and  the  f/old  of  Ophir  as  the  stones  of  Blessed  be  ye  poor;  for  yours  is  the 

the  brooks.    Job  xxii.  23,  24.  kingdom  of  (Jod.  . . .  But  wo  unto  you 

His  seed  shall  be  migrhty  u])on  earth ;  that  are  rich  !     Luke  vi  20,  24. 

the  generation  of  the  upright  shall  be  iso    is    he    that  layeth    up    treasure 

blessed.     Wealth  and  riches  slia/l  be  in  for  himself,   and   is  not    rich  toward 

bis  house.     Ps.  cxii.2,  3.  God.     Luke  xii.  21. 

In  the  house  of  the  righteous  jsmuch  Go  to  now,  ye  rich  men,  weep  and 

treasure.    I'rov.  xv.  6.  howl  for  your  miseries  that  shall  come 

He  shall  receive  a  hundred-fold  now  upon  i/ou.    Your  riches  are  corrupted, 

in  this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  and    your  garments    are    moth-eaten, 

sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and  Your  gold  and  silver  is  cankered;  and 

lands,  with  persecutions;    and  in  the  the  rust  of  them  shall   bo  a  witness 

world  to  come/ eternal  life.  Markx  30.  against  you,  and  shall  eat  your  flesh  as 

it  were  tire.    James  v.  1-3. 

As  to  the  quotation  from  Job,  the  best  critics  agree  substan- 
tially in  the  rendering,  "  Cast  to  the  dust  thy  precious  treasure, 
and  to  the  stones  of  the  brooks  the  gold  of  Ophir;  then  shall 
the  Almighty  be  thy  i^recious  treasure,"  etc.  This  is  nearly 
Conant's  translation.  Delitzsch  ;  " '  Put  far  from  thee  the  idol 
of  precious  metal  with  contempt.'  AVhen  Job  thus  casts  from 
him  temporal  things,  by  the  excessive  cherishing  of  winch  he 
has  hitherto  sinned,  God  himself  will  be  his  imperishable 
treasure." 

The  texts  from  Psalms  assert  that  God  will  not  forsake  his 
people,  but  will  supply  their  needs.  All  exceptions  to  this 
rule  are  apparent,  not  real. 

On  Prov.  XV.  G,  Zockler :  "  The  treasure  stored  up  in  such 
a  house  is  the  righteousness  that  prevails  in  it,  a  source  and 
pledge  of  abiding  prosperity." 

In  Mark  x.  30  the  limiting  clause,  "  with  persecutions,"  shows 
clearly  that  unmixed  prosperity  is  not  promised  to  the  Christian. 

The  opposed  texts  forbid  our  idolizing,  setting  our  affections 
upon,  worldly  things  as  our  "  treasure."  They  also  pronounce 
blessings  upon  the  "  poor  in  spirit,"  the  humble  ;  ^  and  reprove 
those  who  "  trust  in  riches."  ^  Neither  the  acquisition  nor  the 
possession  of  earthly  riches  is  forbidden,  but  the  making  of 
wealth  our  god  is  prohibited. 

•  Sec  Matt.  V.  8.  *  Compare  Mark  x.  24;  1  Tim.  vi.  17. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  175 

Poverty  a  blcsxin;/.  Riches  a  hlessiiif/.  Neither  desirable. 

(Miildrcn,  how  liard  is  So  the  Lo!in  blossed  the  Uomove  far  from    mft 

it  for  tliiMii  that  tiiist  in  latter  ond   of   Job   more  vanity  and  lies;  givp  m;" 

riches   to   ontor   into   the  than   liis   l)e,;;inninK;    for  neither  i)ovorty  nor  ricU- 

kinirdoiu   of  God.      It  is  lie  had  fourteen  thousand  es;    leed    mr'   with    food 

easier  fur  a  camel  to  pro  sheep,  and  six  thousand  convenient  for  me:  lest  I 

through  the  eye  of  a  nee-  camels,   and   a   thousand  bt^  full  and  deny //ice.  and 

die,  than  fir  a  rich  man  yoke  of  oxen,  and  a  thou-  say.  Who  is  the   ioiid? 

to  entei- into  the  killed  .m  sand  she  asses.    Job  xlii.  or  lest    I   be    poor,   and 

of  God.    Mark  X.  2-1,  25.  12.  steal,  and  take  the  name 

Hath  not  God  chosen  The  rich  man's  wealth  of  my  Godi/t  rai«.   I'rov. 

the  poor  of  this  world,  is    his   strong   city:    the  xxx.  8, 9. 

rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  destruction  of  the  poor  is 

the  kingdom.    Jas.  ii.  5.  their  poverty.  Prov.  x.  15. 

The  "  rich  man  "  of  Mark  x.  25  is  described,  in  the  preceding 
verse,  as  one  who  "  trusts "  in  riches,  making  them  his  god. 
James  teaches  that  there  is  in  the  humbler  walks  of  life,  —  in 
their  freedom  from  the  temptations,  cares,  and  anxiety  incident 
to  wealth,  —  something  which  is  peculiarly  favorable  to  the 
origin  and  growth  of  true  piety. 

As  to  the  great  wealth  which  the  Lord  bestowed  upon  Job, 
it  is,  says  Barnes,  substantially  that  of  an  Arab  ruler  or  chief 
like  those  who,  at  the  present  day,  are  called  Emirs.^  The  turn 
in  Job's  affairs  has  its  lesson.  JMr.  Cook,  in  Smith's  Biblical 
Dictionary :  "  The  restoration  of  his  external  prosperity,  which 
is  an  inevitable  result  of  God's  personal  mauifestation,  symbol- 
izes the  ultimate  compensation  of  the  righteous  for  all  sufferings 
undergone  upon  earth." 

As  to  Prov.  X.  15,  Stuart  takes  the  meaning  to  be  that  there 
are  times  when  the  wealth  of  the  rich  will  avert  danger  and 
suffering ;  and  at  such  times  the  poor  may  perish  for  want  of 
money.  Zockler :  "  Naturally  the  author  is  here  thinking  of 
wealth  well  earned  by  practical  wisdom ;  and  this  at  the  same 
time  a  means  in  the  further  efforts  of  wisdom ;  and  again,  of  a 
deserved  poverty  which  wliilc  the  consequence  of  foolisli  con- 

*  The  size  of  JoIj's  floeks  ami  herds  is  not  wonderful.  I'arallel  cases  can 
he  adduced  in  our  own  time.  In  an  address  before  the  "  IlampdcMi  Airri- 
cultural  Societj-,"  the  lecturer  mentioned  a  farmer  in  California  who  owns 
100,000  sheep,  and  another  with  185,000;  also,  a  certain  farm  whidi  pro- 
(Inccil  •10,000  bushels  of  wheat,  and  anotlier  upon  which  '2,500  cows  arc 
kei)t.  (See  "  ConjiTcirationallst,"  May  4,  1S71).  Yet  infidels  ailducc  the 
later  wealth  of  Job  as  a  thini;  incredible. 


176  DISCREPANCIES    OP   THE   BIBLE. 

duct  always  causes  one  to  sink  deeper  in  folly  and  moral  need." 
Lord  Bacon :  "  This  is  excellently  expressed,  that  riches  are  as 
a  stroughold  in  imagination,  and  not  always  in  fact;  for  cer- 
tainly great  riches  have  sold  more  men  than  they  have  bought 
out." 

The  prayer  of  Agur  (Prov.  xxx.),  embodies  the  sentiment 
that  a  moderate  competence  is  better  than  extreme  poverty  or 
enormous  wealth. 

Wisdom,  source  of  happiness.  Cause  of  sorrow. 

Happy  is  the  man  that  iindeth  wis-  For  in  mucli  wisdom  is  much  grief: 
dom,  and  the  man  that  getteth  under-  and  he  that  increaseth  knowledge  in- 
standing  . . .  Her  ways  are  ways  of  pleas-  creaseth  sorrow.    Eccl.  i.  18. 
antness,  and  all   lier  paths  are  peace.  Then  said  I  in  my  heart.  As  it  hap- 
I'rov.  iii.  13,  17.  penetli  to  the  fool,  so  it  liapj)encth  even 

For  wisdom  is  better  than  rubies;  tome;  and  why  was  1  then  more  wise? 

and  all  the  things  tliat  may  be  desired  Then  I  said  in  my  lieart,  that  this  also 

are  not  to  be  compared  to  it.    I'rov.  is  vanity.    Eccl.  ii.  15. 
viii.  11. 

In  the  first  texts,  "  wisdom  "  denotes  spiritual  wisdom,  which 
prepares  for  and  lays  hold  upon  the  future  life.  In  the  second 
case,  the  term  implies  mere  worldly  knowledge,  unsanctified 
learning,  wisdom  limited  to  the  sphere  of  this  life.  The  "  grief  " 
and  "  sorrow  "  may  refer  to  the  depression  of  mind  and  bodily 
indisposition  attendant  upon  intense  and  long-continued  study 
and  efforts  to  acquire  knowledge,  and  to  the  frequent  disap- 
pointment of  this  pursuit.  The  Germans  have  a  proverb, 
"  Much  wisdom  causcth  head-ache." 

A  <jood  name  a  blessing.  A  curse. 

A  good  name  is  rather  to  he  chosen  Wo  unto  you,  when  all  men  shall 

tlian  great  riches.     I'rov.  xxii.  1.  speak   well    of  you!    for  so   did    their 

A  good  name  is  better  than  precious  fathers  to  the  false  prophets.     Luke  vi. 

ointment.    Eccl.  vii.  1.  26. 

A  "  good  name "  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  "  all  men 
speak  well "  of  its  possessor.  Many  a  man  has  a  good  name 
—  a  solid  and  well-earned  reputation  —  who  has  nevertheless 
numerous  adversaries  and  calumniators.  Tlie  denunciation  in 
Luke  is  levelled  at  flatterers  and  time-serving  .sycophants,  wlio, 
like  modern  politicians  and  office-seekers,  are  ever  ready  to 
sacrifice  |)rinciple  to  popularity.  Those  ministers  whos(!  preach- 
ing offends  no  one,  of  whom  "  all  men  speak  well,"  who  prophesy 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  177 

"smooth  things,"^  and  "daub  with  untempered  mortar,"^  are 
in  the  dii-ect  line  of  the  wo  denounced  by  our  Lord. 

Righteous  not  found  begging.  Some  righteous  beg. 

1  liave  been  young,  and  nov  am  old  ;  And  there  was  a  certain  begfrar  named 
yet  have  1  not  seen  tlie  rijrliteous  for-  Lazarus.  .  .  .  And  it  came  to  pass,  that 
saken,  nor  his  seed  begging  bread.  I's.  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  tlie 
xxxvii.  25.  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.      Luke 

xvi.  20,  22. 

The  occasional  and  temporary  exceptions,  which  had  not 
fallen  under  David's  notice,  only  prove  the  rule. 

Hengstenberg :  "  It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  God,  while  he 
withheld  from  the  righteous  of  the  old  covenant,  any  clear 
insight  into  a  futm-e  state  of  being,  on  that  account  unfolded 
his  righteousness  the  more  distinctly  in  his  dealings  towards 
them  during  this  life,  so  that  they  might  not  err  concerning  it." 

TJiey  2Jossess  the  earth.  Mere  sojourners  here. 

Blessed  are  the  meek  :  for  they  shall  For  we  are  strangers  before  thee,  and 
inherit  the  earth.    Matt.  v.  5.  sojourners,  as  were  all  our  fathers :  our 

days  on  the  earth  are  as  a  shadow,  and 
there  is  none  abiding.  IChron.  xxix. 
15. 

For  here  have  we  no  continuing 
city,  but  we  seek  one  to  come.  Heb. 
xiii.  14. 

INIr.  Barnes  thinks  that  the  first  text  is  a  proverbial  expres- 
sion employed  by  the  Jews  to  denote  any  great  blessmg ;  perhaps 
as  the  sum  of  all  blessings.  Schoettgen :  "  They  [the  meek] 
with  their  religion  shall  have  dominion,  not  only  in  the  land 
of  Judea,  but  also  through  the  whole  earth."  Alford  :  "  That 
Idngdom  of  God  which  begins  in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples, 
and  is  '  not  of  tliis  world,'  shall  work  onwards,  till  it  shall 
become  actuaUij  a  kingdom  over  this  earth,  and  its  sultjects  shall 
inherit  the  earth,  lirst  in  its  millennial,  and  tinally  in  its  renewed 
and  blessed  state  forever." 

The  church  of  Christ  will  be  a  permanent  institution  of  ever 
increasing  influence  and  power ;  although  the  individuals  who 
at  any  given  time  compose  that  church  are  but  sojourners  and 
wayfarers  here  below. 

» Isa.  XXX.  10;  Jer.  xxiii.  31.  «  Ezek.  xiii  10-lG;  xxii.  28. 


178  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE    BIBLE. 

Pilf/rims  and  strcmr/ers.  JVot  pilrjrims  and  strangers. 

And  confessed  that  thev  were  stran-  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  stran- 
gers and  pilgrims  on  the  earth,  lieb.  pers  and  J'oreifrners.  but  fellow-citizens 
xi.  13.  with  the  s^aints,  and  of  the  household 

Dearly  beloved,   1   beseech    j/ou,  as    of  God.    Eph.  ii.  19. 
6tran?rers  and  pilfrrims,   abstain  from 
fleshly  lusts,  which  war    against    the 
soul.    1  I'et.  ii.  11. 

The  first  texts  refer  to  Christians  in  their  relation  to  the 
present  ivorld.  They  have  no  permanent  home  on  earth ;  their 
citizenship  is  not  here ;  they  expect  to  remain  here  but  a  short 
time ;  they  are  passing  on  to  their  eternal  home  on  high.  The 
last  quotation  depicts  them  in  tJteir  relation  to  the  household  of 
faith.  They  have  been  "  adopted  "  into  the  holy  brotherhood, 
and  are  entitled  to  all  its  privileges  and  blessings.  Hence  they 
are  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  outcasts  and  aliens,  but  as 
members  of  the  celestial  family. 

They  surely  live.  Some  of  them  die. 

But  if  a  man  be  just,  and  do  that  For  he  seeth  that  wise  men  die.  Ps. 
which    Is   lawful  and    right,  .  .     hath    xlix.  10. 

walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath  kejit       There  is  a  just  man  that  perisheth  in 
my  judgments,  to  deal  truly;  he  ?.< just,    his  righteousness.    Eccl.  vii.  15. 
he  shall  surely  live,  saith  the  Lord  Ood. 
Ezek.  xviii.  5,  9. 

Whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in 
me  shall  never  die.    John  xi.  26. 

The  first  texts  refer  to  spiritual  or  eternal  life ;  the  last  to 
mere  physical  or  temporal  death,  which  all  alike,  good  and  bad, 
undergo. 

Menasseh  ben  Israel  ^  has  this  suggestion :  "  Divine  justice 
sometimes  chastises  the  righteous  in  this  world  for  some  sin, 
that  he  may  receive  the  full  reward  of  his  good  actions  in  the 
next ;  and  the  punisliment  of  the  wicked  is  sometimes  delayed 
to  pay  him  for  some  good  he  may  have  done  in  this,  and  to 
punish  him  fully  in  the  other  when  the  balance  is  adjusted." 

Will  he  persecuted.  Not  persecuted. 

All   that  will    live  godly  in  Christ  When  n  man's  ways  please  the  Lord, 

Jesus  shall  suffer  persecution.    2  Tim.  he  makoth  even  his  eni'mies  to  be  at 

iii.  12.  peace  with  him.    I'rov.  xvi.  7. 

Andrew  Fuller-:  ''The  truth  seems  to  be  that  neither  of  the 
above  passages  is  to  be  taken  universally.     The  peace  possessed 

'  Conriliator,  11.  214.  '  Works,  i.  683. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  179 

by  those  who  please  God  does  not  extend  so  far  as  to  exempt 

them  from  haAong  enemies ;  and,  though  all  godly  men  must 

m  some  form  or  other  be  persecuted,  yet  none  are  persecuted 

at  all  times.     God  has  always  given  his  people  some  seasons 

of  rest.     The  former  of  these  passages  may  therefore  refer  to 

the  native  enmity  which  true  godliness  is  certain  to  excite;  and 

the  latter  to  the  divine  control  over  it.     Man's  wrath  shall  be 

let  loose  in  a  degree  ;  but  farther  than  what  is  necessary  foi- 

the  praise  of  God  it  shall  not  go." 

Handled  roughly.  Not  touched. 

And   thp  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  He  that  is  bepjotten  of  G"d,  keepefh 

bpliold,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  himself,  and  that  wicked  one  toucheth 

that  he  may  sift  yoii  as  wheat.    Luke  him  not.    1  John  v.  18. 
xxii.  31. 

The  first  text  does  not  say  that  Satan  actually  gained  posses- 
sion of  Peter,  but  merely  that  he  "  desired "  to  do  so ;  the 
second  avers  that  the  "■  wicked  one  "  does  not  inflict  any  per- 
manent injury  upon  the  believer. 

Christian  yoke,  easy.  Burdensome. 

Come  unto  me,  all  ije  that  labour,  and       In  the  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation, 
are  heavy  laden,  and  1  will  give  you    John  xvi.  33. 

re.st.    For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my        For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chast- 
burden  is  light.    Matt.  xi.  2»,  30.  eneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom 

he  receiveth.  Hut  if  ye  be  without 
chastisement,  whereof  all  are  partakers, 
then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons. 
ileb.  xii.  6.8. 

In  certain  important  a.spects  or  relations,  the  yoke  of  Christ 
is  "  easy."  Christianity,  being  a  spiritual  religion,  is  far  less 
burdensome  tlian  are  false  religious ;  it  imposes  much  fewer 
ceremonies  and  observances  than  do  they.  It  is  also  congruous 
with  man's  reason,  conscience,  and  all  his  nobler  instincts,  and 
satisfies  the  needs  and  aspirations  of  his  higher  spiritual  nature. 
The  Christian  life  is  the  normal  life  of  man. 

Looking  from  another  point  of  view,  the  Christian's  yoke 
may  be  deemed  "  burdensome."  For  Christianity,  being  a  pure 
religion,  comes  in  direct  collision  with  the  deep  sinfulness  of 
the  human  heart ;  it  is  in  mtense  antagonism  with  everytliing 
corrupt  and  evil.  Hence  the  Christian  must  "crucify  the 
flesh  "  with  the  passions  and  lusts,  and  in  so  doing  must  pass 
through  many  a  sore  trial  and  conflict. 


180  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Wicked,  —  earthly  lot. 

Longevity  ascribed  to  them.  Denied  to  them. 

Wherefore  do  the  wicked  live,  be-  They  die  in  youth,  and  their  life  is 

come  old,  yea,  are  mighty  in  power?  amon^  the  unclean.    .Job  xxxvi.  14. 

Their  seed  is  established  in  tlieir  sijjht  Bloody  and  deceitful  men  shall  not 

■with  them,  and  their  ofl'spring  before  live  out  half  their  days.     I's.  Iv.  23. 

their  eyes.    Job  xxi.  7,  8.  The    years  of  the    wicked   shall    be 

Though  a  sinner  do  evil  a  hundred  shortened.     Prov.  x.  27. 

times,  and  his  duijs  be  prolonged.  Eccl.  Hut  it  shall    not  be  well  with  the 

viii.  12.  wicked,   neither  shall  he  prolong  his 

The  sinner  being  a  hundred  years  old  days,   which  are  as  a  shadow.    Eccl. 

shall  be  accursed.    Isa.  Ixv.  20.  viii.  13. 

The  afRrmative  texts  do  not  assert  that  all  the  wicked  live 
to  old  age.  As  to  the  first  citation,  Zophar  had  just  asserted 
that  the  "  portion  "  of  a  wicked  man  is,  to  be  cut  off  in  a 
moment.  Job,  in  reply,  denies  the  universality  of  this  prin- 
ciple, and  says  that  some  of  the  wicked  do  live,  become  old,  and 
mighty  in  power.  Yet  he  evidently  regards  these  as  excep- 
tional cases :  for  he  adds :  "  IIow  oft  is  the  candle  of  the  wicked 
put  out !  and  how  oft  cometh  their  destruction  upon  them !  " 

The  two  next  quotations  do  not  assert  the  longevity  of 
sinners,  but  are  purely  hypothetical. 

The  four  opposed  texts  assert  the  general  principle  that  the 
tendency  of  vice  is  to  shorten  human  life.  Of  this  the  statistics 
of  intemperance,  licentiousness,  and  crime  in  general  afford 
grim  and  appalling  proof.  The  sense  of  the  combined  texts  is, 
that  many  of  the  wicked  perish  early  through  their  sins,  but 
that  some,  in  exceptional  cases,  live  on  to  old  age. 

They  prosper.  Will  not  prosper. 

The  tabernacles  of  robbers  prosper,  Evil  shall  slay  the  wicked  and  they 
and  they  that  provoke  Uod  are  secure,  that  hate  the  righteous  shall  be  deso- 
Job  xii.  G.  late.     I's.  xxxiv.  21. 

Men  of  the  y/orXA,  irhirh  hare  their        Evil  pursueth  sinners.    Prov.  xiii.  21. 
portion    in   this   life,  and  whose   belly 
thou  (illcst  with  thy  hid  treasure,    i's. 
xvii.  14. 

Their  eyc.s  stand  out  with  fatness: 
they  have  more  than  heart  could  wish. 
I'lehold,  these  are  the  ungodly,  who 
pri>si)er  in  the  world;  they  increase  in 
riches.     I's.  Ixxiii.  7,  12. 

Wherefore  doth  the  way  f)f  the  wick- 
ed prosper?  vliercjhre  are  all  they 
liiipity  that  deal  very  treacherously? 
Jer.  xii.  1. 

The  first  five  texts  refer  to  the  temporary  prosperity  wliich 
the  wicked  not  infrequently  enjoy.     The  transitory  nature  of 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  181 

this  prosperity  was  not  comprehended  by  the  Psalmist,  until  he 
went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God  ;  tlien  he  understood  the  end 
of  the  wicked,  that  they  were  "  set  in  slippery  places."  ^ 

Menasseh  ben  Israel :  "  God  sometimes  delays  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  either  that  they  may  repent,  or  to  reward 
them  in  this  life  for  some  good  action  they  may  have  per- 
formed, or  for  some  secret  reason  known  only  to  his  consum- 
mate wisdom." 

The  last  two  texts  do  not  assert  that  evil  pursueth  and  shall 

slay  the  wicked  without  a  moment's  delay,  but  merely  that  this 

will  ultimately  be  the  case. 

See  the  Divine  glory.  Will  not  see  it. 

And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  In  the  land  of  uprightness  will   he 

revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  to-  deal  unjustly,  and  will  not  behold  the 

gether.    Isa.  xl.  5.  majesty  of  the  Lord.   Isa.  xxvi.  10. 

The  wicked  will  not  voluntarily  recognize  the  "majesty"  — 
the  sovereignty  and  glory  —  of  the  Lord;  but  he  will  eventu- 
ally be  compelled  to  see  and  acknowledge  it,  as  displayed  in 
the  final  reward  of  virtue  and  punishment  of  \ace,  at  the  last 
great  day. 

Sin  with  impunity.  Promptly  punished. 

Their  houses  are  safe  from  fear,  The  worm  shall  feed  sweetly  on  him ; 
neither  is  the  rod  of  God  upon  them. ...  he  shall  be  no  more  remembered ;  and 
Therefore  they  say  unto  (Jod,  Depart  wickedness  shall  be  broken  as  a  tree. .. . 
from  us;  for  we  desire  nut  the  knowl-  They  are  exalted  for  a  little  while,  but 
edge  of  thy  ways.    Job  xxi.  9,  14.  are  gone  and  brought  low;   they  are 

taken  out  of  the  way  as  all  other,  and 
cut  off  as  the  tops  of  the  ears  of  corn. 
Jobxxiv.  20,  24. 

Theodore  Parker  ^  deems  it  an  evidence  of  the  "  exquisite 
art "  and  "  naturalness  "  with  which  the  book  was  written,  that 
Job,  in  his  distraction,  is  represented  as  affirming  and  denying 
a  thing  almost  in  the  same  breath. 

A  better  explanation  of  passages  like  the  above  is,  that  in 
relation  to  our  limited  wisdom  and  impatient  feelings,  —  as  we 
often  look  at  matters  —  the  wicked  are  not  punished  promptly, 
but  sin  with  impunity ;  while  upon  a  comprehensive  and  im- 
partial view  of  the  case  —  as  infinite  wisdom  sees  it  —  they  are 
punished  promptly,  that  is,  at  exactly  the  right  time. 

1  See  Ps.  Ixxiii.  16-18.  -  Translation  of  De  Wette,  ii.  557. 

IG 


182  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Their  punhhment  denied.  Affirmed. 

Behold,  as  wild  asses  in  the  desert,  This  is  the  portion  of  a  wicked  man 

po  tliey  forth  to  tlieir  worI< ;  risinjr  be-  with  God,  and  tlic  lioritase  of  oppress- 

times  fnr  a  prey :  the  wilderness  iitKld-  ors,  which  tliey  sliall   receive  of  tlie 

e'// food  for  tlieiua;((/ for //((-</■  children.  Almijrhtv.     If  his  children   be  miilti- 

They  reaj)  ecer//  one  his   corn   in   the  plied,  i7  "/.<  for  the  sword:  and  his  ofT- 

tield.  . . .  Men  groan  from  out  of  the  city,  sprinp;  shall  not  be  satisfied  with  bread, 

and  the  .soul   of  tha  wounded  crieth  .  .  .  For  Cod  shall  cast  uj)on  him.  and 

out:  yet  Cod  layeth  not  folly  to  them,  not  spare:  he  would  fain  flee  out  of  his 

Job  xxiv.  5,  6,  12.  hand.    Job  xxvii.  13,  14,  22. 

Hirzel :  ^  "  While  Job's  opponents  wished  to  prove  this 
proposition  against  him,  that '  the  transgressor  did  not  escape 
punishment  in  his  life,'  and  charged  it  upon  Job  himself  that, 
since  every  transgressor  was  miserable,  therefore  every  miserable 
man  was  a  transgressor;  to  parry  this  argument  Job  had 
hitherto,  though  against  his  better  judgment,  denied  the  entire 
proposition ;  and,  since  his  opponents  had  laid  it  down  as  a 
permanent  and  universal  rule,  he  had  confirmed  tliis  denial  by 
adducing  numerous  examples  where  the  contrary  was  true. 
But  now  he  goes  on  to  explain  the  matter  to  his  friend.s,  and 
admits  that  they  have  rightly  apprehended  the  law  by  wliich 
the  transgressor's  lot  is  determined."  Yet,  while  making  this 
concession,  he  points  out  an  error  into  which  they  have  fallen 
in  applying  the  principle.  This  explanation  relieves  the  diffi- 
culty by  referring  the  "  apparent  contradiction  "  to  the  different 
relations  in  which  Job  speaks. 

Nor,  on  the  hypothesis  that  Job  was  not  inspired  as  a  re- 
ligious teacher,  is  it  of  the  slightest  consequence  whether  or 
not  we  can  establish  the  concinnity  of  all  his  utterances. 

SetHbution  on  Earth. 

Reward  and  punishment  here.  Ilereafter. 

Behold,  the  righteous  shall  be  recom-  P"or  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
pensed  in  the  earth:  much  more  tli(?  the  glory  of  his  Kaiher,  with  his  aupels; 
%vicked  and  the  einmer.    I'rov.  xi.  31.        and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man 

according  to  his  works.  jMatt.  xvi.  27. 
And  1  saw  the  d<'ad,  small  and  great, 
stand  before  (jod;  and  the  books  were 
opened  :  and  another  book  was  opened, 
which  i*  thi:  hool:  u\'  lite:  a:id  the  clead 
were  judged  out  of  those  things  which 
were  written  in  the  books,  according  to 
their  works,    llev.  x.v.  12. 

It  is  not  asserted,  in  ihe  iiist  text,  that  eitlier  the  righteous 
'  Quoted  by  DcWcttc,  ii.  501. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  183 

or  wicked  receive  full  recompense  in  this  world.  The  meaning, 
doubtless,  is  that  the  beginnings  of  retribution  are  seen  here  on 
the  earth.  Stuart :  "  The  same  retributive  government  which 
begins  to  assert  its  power  in  this  world,  will  continue  its 
processes  in  the  world  to  come  ' 

Melancthon,  Bishop  Hall,  Edwards,  Lange,  and  other  critics 
take  the  word  "  recompensed"  as  referring  exclusively  to  the 
punishment  of  loronrj-doing.  Hence,  the  sentiment  is,  '•  If  the 
righteous  in  this  world  suffer  chastisement  for  their  misdeeds, 
much  more  surely  shall  the  impenitent  be  punished  for  their 
wilful  transgi-ession."  That  is,  the  argument  is  derived  from 
the  corrective  discipline  experienced  by  good  men  on  earth  in 
favor  of  the  just  retribution  which  shall  be  meted  out  hereafter 
to  the  incorrigible  sinner.  In  no  aspect  is  it  affirmed  that  full 
and  final  retribution  is  administered  in  this  world. 

VI.    31  AN,  in  relation  to  the  Future.  —  JDeatJi. 

Men  must  die.  Some  loill  not  die. 

So  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall 
that  all  have  sinned.     Horn.  v.  12.  never  see  death.    Jchn  viii.  51. 

And  as  it  is  appointed  uuto  men  once  And  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth 
to  die.    Heb.  ix.  27.  in  me  shall  never  die.    John  xi.  26. 

We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall 
all  be  cliaufjed     1  Cor.  xv.  51. 

We  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto 
the  coming  of  the  J.urd  shall  not  pre- 
vent them  which  are  asleep.  .  .  .  The 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then 
we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be 
caught  up  together  with  ihem  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air. 
1  The.^s  iv.  15, 16,  17. 

He  that  overcometh  shall  not  be  hurt 
of  the  second  death.    Kev.  ii.  11. 

Tlie  two  texts  from  John  refer  not  to  physical  but  to  spiritual 
death.  The  Pauline  quotations  contemplate  the  righteous  who 
shall  be  living  on  the  earth  at  the  time  of  Christ's  second  coming. 
These  will  not  indeed  literally  "  die,"  but  will  be  "  changed  "  ; 
that  is,  undergo  a  transformation  equivalent  to  death,  putting 
off  mortality  and  putting  on  immort;xlity.  All  will  experience 
either  death,  or  what  is  tantamount  to  it.  As  Alford  says: 
'•  The  sleep  of  death  cannot  be  prediciited  of  all  of  us,  but  the 
resurrect ioii-cluinge  can." 


184  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Rev.  ii.  11  also  denotes  not  physical  death,  hut  the  final 
punishment  of  the  incorrigibly  wicked.  It  is  fitly  termed 
'  death,"  as  being  an  eternal  separation  from  hope  and  happiness, 
and  an  exclusion  from  all  which  is  worthy  of  the  name  ''  life." 

Lazarus  not  to  die.  He  did  die. 

Therefore  his  sisters  sent  unto  him,  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly, 
saying,  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou  Lazarus  is  dead.  And  I  am  glad  for 
lovest  is  sick.  When  Je-^us  heard  that,  j'our  sakes  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the 
he  said,  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  intent  ye  may  believe.  John  xi.  14,  15. 
but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son 
of  God  might  be  glorified  thereby.  John 
xi.  3,  4. 

"  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death  "  ;  that  is,  the  ultimate  result 
will  not  be  "  death,"  but  '•  the  glory  of  God."  And  so  it  proved, 
for  many  of  the  Jews  who  witnessed  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
from  the  dead,  believed  on  the  Son  of  God.'  Thus  the  Father 
was  glorified  in  the  Son. 

Man  dies  like  a  beast.  Jlis  death  different. 

For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of       Then  shall   the  dust    return  to  the 
men  befalleth  beasts;   even  one  thing    earth  as  it  was :  and  the  spirit  shall  re- 
befallcth   them:    as  the  one  dieth,  so    turn  unto  God  who  gave  it.  Eccl.  xii.7. 
dieth  the  other;  yea,  tliev  have  all  one 
breatli ;  so  that  a  man   nath   no  pre- 
eminence above  a  beast.    I^ccl.  iii.  19. 

In  one  aspect  of  the  case,  there  is  no  distinction  between  the 
death  of  man  and  that  of  beasts.  Both  are  uncertain  as  to  the 
time  of  it ;  both  are  jjowerless  to  prevent  it ;  the  physical  phe- 
nomena, in  each  case,  are  much  the  same.  In  these  respects 
there  is  a  very  close  resemblance,  and  this  may  be  the  relation 
of  which  the  author  is  speaking. 

Or,  with  many  commentators,  we  may  say  that  Solomon 
raises  and  answers  objections,  as  Paul  does  so  often.  Thus 
the  passage  in  question  (Eccl.  iii.  18-20),  beginning  "  I  said 
in  mine  heart,"  etc.,  may  be  merely  an  objection  wliich,  being 
suggested  to  the  mind  of  Solomon,  he  proceeds  to  discuss  and 
solve.  Dr.  Davidson^  thmks  that  the  author  brings  before 
his  readers  doubts  suggested  by  observation  and  reflection,  or 
in  some  cases  presented  to  him  by  others.  Prof.  Stuart :  "When 
we  view  the  author  in  tlie  liglit  of  proposing  the  doubts  and 

'  Compare  Joliii  xi.  45.  •  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii,  .385. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  185 

difficulties  which  perjilexed  his  own  miml,  and  sooner  or  later 
as  solving  them,  then  we  meet  with  no  serious  embarrassment 
in  interpreting  the  book. 

Prof.  Tayler  Lewis,  in  Lange,  takes  the  words,  "  I  said  in 
mine  heart  concerning,"  etc.,  as  equivalent  to,  "  I  deduced  this 
inference  from  men's  lives,  I  put  this  interpretation  upon  their 
conduct,  that,  in  their  own  view,  they  are  beasts."  It  is  man's 
judgment  upon  liimself,  as  pronounced  by  his  own  conduct.  It 
is  the  language  of  his  life. 

A  terribly  severe,  but  no  less  just,  estimate  of  man,  from  a 
point  of  view  api^arently  identical  with  his  own. 

Death  ceases.  Still  exists. 

Jesus    Christ,    who    hath    abolished        Tt  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die. 
death,  and  hatli  brought  life  and  im-    Heb.  ix.  27. 
mortaility  to  light  through  the  gospel. 
2  Tim.  i.  10. 

"  Hath  abolished  death  " ;  hath  taken  away  its  sting  and  terror, 
so  that  it  is  no  longer  death,  a  grim,  and  terrible  monster,  but 
a  kind  angel  come  to  conduct  the  believer  home  to  heaven. 
Alford :  "  By  the  death  of  Christ,  death  has  lost  his  sting ;  and 
is  henceforth  of  no  more  account;  consequently  the  act  of 
natural  death  is  evermore  treated  by  the  Lord  himself  and  his 
apostles  as  of  no  accoimt;  and  its  actual  and  total  abolition 
foretold." 

3fen,  immortal.  God  only,  immortal. 

Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kiH  the  The  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords, 

body,  and  after  that  have  no  more  that  Who  only  liath  immortality.    1  Tim. 

they  can  do.    Luke  xii.  4.  vi.  15, 16. 

The  first  text  is  a  strong  incidental  proof  that  the  soul  is 
"  immortal,"  since  it  does  not  die  with  the  body.  It  is  beyond 
the  power  of  the  persecutor.  When  he  has  killed  the  body  his 
fury  has  expended  itself ;  he  can  do  no  more  ;  he  cannot  reach 
or  harm  the  soul.  The  survival  of  the  soul  is  thus  plainly 
implied  and  assumed  by  our  Lord. 

The  second  text  is  interpreted  by  "mortal-soulists,"^  as  deny- 

*  We  use  this  term,  instead  of  "  Thnetopsychites,"  the  name  employed 
bv  John  Daraascenus  (see  Hagenbach's  History  of  Doctrines,  i.  '221),  to 
16* 


186  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 

ing  immortality  to  all  beings  except  God,  Hence  it  would  follow 
that  the  angels, —  Gabriel,  and  Michael  the  archangel  even, — 
are  mortal !  And  if,  as  Alford  thuiks,  the  above  text  refers  to 
the  Father  exclusively,  it  would  also  follow  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself  is  mortal ! ! 

By  parity  of  reasoning  the  language  employed  in  Rom.  xvi. 
27,  "  God  only  wise,"  warrants  the  inference  that  God  is  the 
only  being  who  possesses  wisdom  ! 

The  meaning  in  both  cases  obviously  is  that  only  God  pos- 
sesses the  given  attribute,  inherently  and  underivedly.  Justin 
Martyr :  "  He  has  not  this  through  the  will  of  another,  as  all 
the  other  immortals,  but  through  his  own  essence."  Theodoret : 
"  Immortal  by  essence,  not  by  participation." 

Upon  no  reasonable  interpretation  does  the  passage  collide 
with  the  derived  and  dependent  immortality  of  man. 

Men  Tcill  the  soul.  Cannot  kill  it. 

Joshua  took  Makkedah,  and  snioto  it  And  fear  not  thorn  which  kill  the 
witli  the  t'dye  of  the  sword,  and  the  body,  but  arc  not  able  to  kill  the  soul: 
king  thoroofhe  utterly  destroyed,  them,  but'ratlier  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
and  all  the  souls  that  tcere  therein,  destroy  both  soul  aud  body  iu  hell. 
Josh.  X  28.  Matt.  X.  28. 

And  they  smote  all  the  souls  that 
tfcre  therein  with  theedgeof  tliesword, 
utterly  destroyinof  iltetn :  there  was  not 
any  left  to  breathe.    Josh.  xi.  11. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  allude  to  the  fact  that  our  word 
"  soul "  is  used  in  two  entirely  distinct  senses.  Thus  we  say, 
"The  soul  is  immortal,"  and,  alluding  to  a  marine  disaster, 
"  Every  soul  perished."  In  the  latter  case,  "  soul  "  is  synony- 
mous with  "person."  This  secondary  meaning  of  the  word 
may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  soid  of  man  which 
gives  him  personality.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  most  orthodox 
theologians  employ  the  term  in  these  widely  different  senses. 

designate  those  who  deny  the  n.ituial  immortality  of  the  soul  or  spirit  of 
man.  The  term  may  be  extended  to  include  also  the  denial  of  conseious- 
ness  to  tlie  soul  in  the  Interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  Ap- 
parently the  first  attempt  to  introduce  Tlinetopsychisin  into  the  Christian 
cliurcli  was  made,  a.d.  218,  by  certain  errorists  from  Arabia.  Comi)aro 
Kusebius's  Kcelesiastical  History,  IJook  vi.,  chap,  xxxvii.;  and  Gucriekc's 
Ancient  Chureh,  p.  228. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  187 

The  corresponding  Hebrew  and  Greek  terms  are  used  with 
similar  latitude.  Thus,  according  to  Fuerst,  the  Hebrew  word 
"  nephesh  "  sometimes  means  the  soul  or  spirit ;  in  other  cases, 
an  individual,  a  person,  man.  Gesenius  says,  spirit,  soxd,mind ; 
also  a  man,  person. 

In  view  of  this  fact,  when  one  text  asserts  that  Joshua  "  slew 
all  the  souls  "  in  a  city,  and  another  affirms  that  man  is  "  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul,"  we  see  that  here  is  no  discrepancy.  The 
term  "  soul,"  in  one  case,  refers  to  man  in  his  earthly  make-up, 
as  we  see  him ;  in  the  other,  to  the  deathless  intelligence  which 
survives  the  dissolution  of  its  tabernacle,  the  body. 

If,  as  mortal-soulists  assert,  the  soul  actually  dies  with  the 

body,  then  he  who  "  kills  "  the  latter,  in  that  very  act  kills  the 

former  also.     If  the  Siamese  twins  are  so  connected  that  the 

death  of  one  involves  that  of  the  other,  then  the  murderer  who 

kills  Chang,  by  that  very  stroke  kills  Eng  likewise.     That  is, 

according  to  the  theory  we  are  criticising,  man  is  as  really  "  able 

to  kill  the  soul "  as  God  is. 

Immortality  possessed.  To  be  acquired. 

I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye  shall  Who  by  patient  continuance  in  well 

fear:  Fear  him,  which  after  lie  hath  doing  seek  for  glory  and  honor  and 

killed,  hath   power  to  cast  into  liell;  immortality.    Horn  ii.  7. 
yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him.    Luke 
xii.  5. 

The  first  passage  implies  that  there  is  an  intelligence,  a  spirit, 
in  man,  which  outlives  and  is  not  affected  by  the  dissolution  of 
the  body.  Hence  God,  after  he  has  killed  the  body,  may  cast 
the  soul  into  hell.  It  is  the  immortal  j^art  which  survives  to 
be  thus  disposed  of. 

As  to  Rom.  ii.  7,  a  favorite  inference  of  mortal-soulists  is 
this  :  "  Since  man  is  here  spoken  of  as  seeking  '  immortality,'  it 
follows  that  he  does  not  possess  it  by  nature."  To  this  charac- 
teristic sophism,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that,  as  every  scholar  is 
aware,  the  Greek  word  used  here  is  not  "  athanasia,"  immor- 
tality, but  "  aphthar&ia,"  incorruption^  and  points  to  that 
exemption  from  moral  corruption  which  the  saints  are  ''seeking" 

^  See  Epb.  vi.  '1\,  where  the  same  word  is  translated  "  sincerity." 


188  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

here,  and  which  they  will  fully  attain  in  heaven.     The  passage 
does  not  touch  the  question  of  man's  immortality  at  all. 

Intermediate  State. 

Dead  unconscious.  Conscious. 

His    sons    come    to    honor,  and    lie  But  his  flesh  upon  liim  sliall  have 

knoweth  i<  not;  and  tliey  are  brouc;ht  pain,  and  his  soul   within  him  shall 

low,  but  he  perceiveth  it  not  of  them,  mourn.    Job  xiv.  22. 

Jobxiv.21.  The  rich    man    also  died,   and  was 

Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  buried.     And  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his 

do  t<  with  thy  niiglit;  for  there  is  no  eyes,  being  in  torments.    Luke  xvi.  22, 

work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  23. 
wisdom,   in   the  grave,  whither  thou 
goest.    Eccl.  ix.  10. 

As  preliminary  to  the  discussion,  we  repeat  that  there  is  no 
proof  that  Job  or  any  of  his  friends  were  inspired — divinely 
commissioned  as  religious  teachers.' 

INIoreover,  the  ideas  of  the  ancients,  particularly  in  that  early 
age  in  which  Job  lived,  were  very  vague  and  obscure  respecting 
the  futm-e  state.  "  Life  and  immortality  "  were  not  "  brought 
to  light  "  tUl  Christ  came. 

Whately,  following  Warburton,  says  :  "  To  the  Israelites  of 
old  Moses  had  no  commission  to  hold  out  the  hopes  and  fears 
of  another  world,  but  only  a  '  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey,'  and  long  life,  and  victory,  and  other  temporal  rewards. 
But  the  '  bringing  in  of  a -better  hope'  by  the  gospel  taught 
the  Christian  to '  set  his  affection  on  things  above,  not  on  things 
on  the  earth,'  and  to  look  for  a  heavenly  Canaan,  a  land 
of  promise  beyond  the  grave.  God's  kingdom  of  old  was  a 
kingdom  of  this  world  ;  but  Christ's  kingdom  is  '  not  of  this 
world.' "  ^ 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  thus  sets  forth  the  Hebrew  view  of  the  con- 

'  Professor  Stuart,  speaking  of  the  irrelevant  appeals  which  are  made 
to  the  01(1  Testament,  both  in  and  out  of  the  pulpit,  and  the  unsuitable 
quotations  made  from  it,  observes:  "  Books  of  such  a  peculiar  nature  as 
Job  and  Ecclesiastes,  for  example,  are  resorted  to  witli  as  mucli  confidence 
tor  proof -texts,  as  if  they  were  all  preceptive,  and  not  an  account  of  dis- 
putes and  doubts  about  relif^ious  matters."  —  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon, 
p.  400  (Uevised  edition,  p.  382). 

-  Future  State,  p.  lOO. 

"  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  290. 


DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  189 

dition  of  the  dead  in  "  sheol,"  the  place  of  departed  spirits : 
"  Their  time  is  passed  in  a  kind  of  sleep,  whence  they  are  only- 
roused  by  some  uncommon  occurrence.  Thus  they  are  repre- 
sented as  shut  up  in  a  land  of  forgetfulness  —  dreamy  shades 
almost  destitute  of  consciousness." 

Dr.  Jahn,  in  his  Biblical  Archaeology,^  gives,  as  will  be  seen 
subsequently,  a  more  attractive  view  than  the  foregoing  ration- 
alistic one  of  Dr.  Davidson.  However,  in  the  most  favorable 
aspect  of  the  case,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  notions  of  the 
ancient  Israelites  respectmg  the  future  life  were  not  seldom 
quite  obscure  and  indefinite.  Nor  is  this  strange ;  for  revela- 
tion is  progressive.  There  is  an  onward  march  of  doctrine  in 
the  Bible,  from  its  beginning  to  its  close.  The  great  truths  of 
the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah,  the  atonement,  justification  by 
faith,  and  human  immortality,  were  imperfectly  revealed  and 
crudely  held  in  patriarchal  times.  Ilengstenberg :  "  As  far  as 
the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  attained  in  their  knowledge, 
they  were  quite  right ;  they  were  only  excluded  from  farther 
light.  But  it  is  error  alone  which  inspiration  excludes,  not  the 
defect  and  im2:)erfection  of  knowledge." 

Those  early  times  were  the  dim  dawn  of  revelation ;  our  age 
beholds  the  full  radiance  of  the  gospel  sun  at  his  meridian 
height.  This  consideration  explains  the  apparent  disagreement 
between  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old  in  regard  to  the 
intermediate  state. 

Just  here  the  reader  will  obseiwe  that  nearly  all  of  the  texts 
adduced  by  mortal-soulists  to  prove  the  unconsciousness  of 
the  dead,  are  taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  particularly 
from  its  poetical  books.  Now,  to  go  back  from  noonday  to 
twilight  in  search  of  our  eschatology,  —  to  ignore  the  plain  and 
clear  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  adopt  as  a  basis 
of  doctrine  the  poetic  utterances  of  a  preliminary,  rudimental, 
far  less  spiritual  dispensation,  —  does  not  indicate  the  highest 
wisdom  on  the  part  of  those  who  pursue  this  course.  Yet  this 
'  Section  314. 


190  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

is  the  policy  adopted  by  the  mortal-souHsts  m  advocating  their 
theory. 

But  let  us  examine  the  foregoing  texts. 

Job  xiv.  21  simply  refers  to  man  in  his  relation  to  the 
present  life,  and  asserts  that  at  death  he  is  entirely  dissociated 
from  the  things  of  earth ;  he  has  no  more  connection  with 
them.  But  the  very  next  verse  shows  that  consciousness  is  not 
denied  to  the  dead. 

As  to  the  next  citation,  Stuart  and  Hengstenberg  take  it  as 
the  statement  of  an  objection  which  is  afterwards  refuted. 
The  latter  says :  "  The  manner  of  the  scriptures  is  to  let  doul)ts 
and  murmurings  have  free  and  full  expression,  and  then  to 
vanquish  them  in  open  conflict  with  the  sword  of  faith." 

Job  xiv.  22  is  rendered  by  Delitzsch :  "  Only  on  his  own 
account  his  flesh  suffereth  pain,  and  on  liis  own  account  is  his 
soul  conscious  of  grief."  Similarly  Eichhorn,  Noyes,  Barnes, 
and  Conant.  Ilofmann :  "  The  pain  of  his  own  flesh,  the  sad- 
ness of  his  own  soul  alone  engage  him.  He  has  therefore  no 
room  for  rejoicing,  nor  does  the  joyous  or  sorrowful  estate  of 
others,  though  liis  nearest  ones,  aflfcct  him." 

As  to  the  text  from  Luke,  if  it  be  a  parable,  we  may  then 
say,  with  Bishop  Bull.  "  It  plahily  belongs  to  the  very  scope 
and  design  of  this  parable  to  show  wliat  becomes  of  the  souls 
of  good  and  bad  men  after  death."  If  it  is  not  a  parable  its 
tenor  cannot  be  a  matter  of  doubt. 

Prof.  Barth'tt : '  ••  The  question  whether  this  is  a  history  or 
a  parable  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss.  In  cither  mode  the 
scripture  teaches  trutli,  important  and  often  vital  truth.  Tlie 
chief  difference  is  that  one  mode  asserts  what  lias  occuri-ed ; 
the  other, '  what  does  occur.' " 

In  any  aspect  Christ  could  not  have  lent  his  sanction  to 
falsehood  or  imposture.  As  Alford  fitly  remarks,  "  In  con- 
forming liimself  to    the  ordinary  language  cun-cnt   on    these 

'  Life  ami  Dcatli  Ktcrnnl,  p.  219. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  191 

subjects,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  tliut  he  whose  essence  is 
truth  could  have  assumed  as  existing  anything  which  does  not 
exist.  It  would  destroy  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  sayings,  if  we 
could  conceive  him  to  have  used  popular  language  which  did 
not  point  at  truth.  And,  accordingly,  where  such  language  was 
current,  we  find  him  not  adopting,  but  protesting  against  it."  ^ 

Therefore,  with  Alford,  Trench,  Wordbworth,  and  the  best 
commentators,  we  take  the  passage  relative  to  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus  as  teaching,  at  all  events,  two  things  :  Jirst,  that 
the  soul  of  man  is  conscious  after  death ;  and  secondly^  that, 
according  to  its  moral  character,  it  goes  either  into  a  place  of 
hap2)iness  and  repose  or  into  one  of  disquiet  and  misery. 
These  two  thoughts  not  only  lie  upon  the  surface  of  the  nar- 
rative ;  but  they  also  constitute  its  very  life  and  essence. 

The  dead,  asleep.  AioaJce. 

And  Jeroboam  slept  with  his  fathers,  Holl  from  beneath  is  moved  for  tliee 

eren  with  the  kings  of  Israel.    2  Kings  to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming:  it  stirreth 

xiv.  29.  up  the  dead  for  thee,  eveti  all  the  chief 

For  now  should  I  have  lain  still  and  ones  of  the  earth.    Isa.  xiv.  9. 

been  quiet,  I  should  have  slept.    Job  Being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 

iii.  1.3.  quickened   by   the  f>pirit.      By   which 

Our  friend   Lazarus  sleepeth;  but  I  also  he  went  and  preached  iinto  the 

go  that  I  mav  awake  him  out  of  sleep,  spirits    in    prison.      Which    sometime 

Then   said   liis   disciples.    Lord,   if   he  were  disubedienc.     1  Bet.  iii.  18-20. 

sleep,  he  shall  do  well.    Uowbeit  Jesus  I  saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of 

spake  of  his  death:   but  they  thought  them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of 

that  he  had  spoken  of  taking  of  rest  (iod,  and  fir  the  testimony  which  they 

in  sleep.    Then   said  Jesus  unto  them  held.    And  thoy  cried  with  aloud  voice, 

plainly,  Lazarus    is    dead.     John  xi.  saying,   Uow   long,  O  Lord,  holy  and 

11-14.  triie,  dost  tliou  not  judge  and  avenge 

And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  fell  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the 

asleep.    Acts  vii.  CO.  earth?    Kev.  vi.  9, 10. 

The  language  whicli  represents  death  as  a  "  sleep  "  is  figura- 
tive, and  is  founded  upon  a  certain  resemblance  of  external 
phenomena.  But  this  application  of  the  term  does  not  neces- 
sitate the  unconsciousness  of  the  "  sleeper ; "  for,  as  even 
Whately^  concedes,  "  The  mind,  certainly  for  the  most  part, 
and  probably  always,  continues  active  during  sleep,  though  in  a 
different  manner."  A  high  authority,  Dunglison's  JNIedical 
Dictionary,  defines  "  sleep  "  as  "  temporary  interruption  of  our 
relations  with  external  olijects."     It  is  this  interruption,  with 

'  See  Matt.  xv.  5,  6.  ^  Future  State,  p.  82. 


192  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

the  attendant  inaction,  the  insensibility  to  external  material 
objects,  and  tlie  repose,  which  makes  sleep  the  "  image  of 
death."  In  neither  case  have  we  proof  that  the  mind  ceases  to 
act,  becomes  unconscious,  or  extinct. 

The  citation  from  Isaiah  represents  the  dead  as  awake  and 
conscious.  Delitzsch :  "AM  hades  is  overwhelmed  with  excite- 
ment and  wonder,  now  that  the  king  of  Babel,  that  invincible 
ruler  of  the  world,  who,  if  not  imexpected  altogether,  was  not 
expected  so  soon,  is  actually  approaching." 

On  the  next  quotation  Alford  says  :  "  With  the  great  ma- 
jority of  commentators,  ancient  and  modern,  I  imderstand  these 
words  to  say  that  our  Lord,  in  his  disembodied  state,  did  go  to 
the  place  of  detention  of  departed  spirits,  and  did  there  announce 
his  work  of  redemption,  preach  salvation  in  fact,  to  the  dis- 
emlx)died  spirits  of  those  who  refused  to  obey  the  voice  of 
God  when  the  judgment  of  the  flood  was  hanging  over  them." 

Prof.  Tayler  Lewis :  ^  "  We  are  taught  that  there  was  a  work 
of  Christ  in  hades.  He  descended  into  hades ;  he  makes 
proclamation  '  ekeruxen '  in  hades  to  those  who  are  there  '  in 
ward.' "  This  interpretation,  wliich  was  almost  universally 
adopted  by  the  early  Christian  church,^  and  which  is  far  more 
tenable  than  any  other,  involves,  of  course,  the  consciousness  of 
departed  souls. 

The  text  from  Revelation  is  very  explicit,  representing  the 
souls  of  those  who  had  suffered  martyrdom,  not  as  insensible, 
but  as  awake  m  the  place  of  rest. 

'  In  Lange  on  Eccl.,  p.  130.  Compare  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  iv.  708;  xvi.  309; 
xix.  1. 

'Professor  Huidekoper:  "In  the  second  and  third  centuries,  every 
branch  and  division  of  Christians,  so  far  as  their  records  enable  us  to 
judge,  believed  that  Christ  preached  to  the  departed."  —  Christ's  Mission 
to  the  Underworld,  pp.  51,  52.  Dictclmair,  in  his  elaborate  "  Ilistoria 
Dogmatis  de  Descensu  Christi  ad  Inferos,"  says  emphatically  that  this 
doctrine  "  in  omni  coetu  Christiano  creditum."  —  See  chapters  iv.  and  vi., 
of  that  work. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


193 


Devoid  of  knowledrje. 

For  in  death  there  ix  no  remembrance 
of  thee:  in  tlie  grave  who  shall  give 
thee  thanks?     I's.  vi.  5. 

Tlie  dead  know  not  any  thing,  neither 
have  tliey  any  more  a  reward :  for  tlie 
memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  Also 
their  love,  and  their  hatred,  and  their 
envy,  is  now  perished;  neither  have 
they  any  more  a  portion  for  ever  in  any 
(hint/  that  is  done  under  the  sun.  Eccl. 
ix.  5,  6. 

For  the  grave  cannot  praise  thee, 
death  cannot  celebrate  thee :  they  that 
go  down  into  the  pit  cannot  hope  for 
thy  truth.    Isa.  xxxviii.  18. 


Po.sse.s.s  knowledge. 

And  he  said.  For  I  will  go  down  into 
the  grave  unto  my  son  mourning.  Gen. 
x.Y.xvii.  35. 

And  Samuel  said  to  Saul,  Why  ha,>;t 
thou  disquieted  me,  tobring  meup?  .  .  . 
And  the  Loui)  hath  done  to  him,  as  he 
spake  by  me:  for  the  1-oni)  hath  rent 
the  kingdom  out  of  thy  hand,  and  given 
it  to  thy  neightiour,  even  to  David.  . .  . 
M'treover,  the  LoitD  will  also  deliver 
Israel  with  thee  into  the  hand  of  the 
I'hilistines:  and  to-morrow  shatt  thou 
and  thy  sons  be  with  me :  the  Lord  also 
shall  deliver  the  host  of  Israel  into  the 
hand  of  the  Philistines.  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
15,  17,  19. 

But  now  he  is  dead,  wherefore  should 
I  fast?  can  I  bring  him  back  again?  I 
shall  go  to  him,  but  he  shall  not  return 
to  me.    2  Sam.  xii.  23. 

I  pray  thee  therefbre,  father,  that 
thou  wouldest  send  him  to  my  father's 
house:  For  1  have  five  brethren;  that 
he  may  testify  unto  them,  lest  they  also 
come  into  this  place  of  torment.  . . .  Nay, 
father  Abraham:  but  if  one  went  unto 
them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent. 
Luke  xvi.  27,  28,  30. 

For  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel 
preached  also  to  them  that  are  dead, 
that  they  might  be  judged  according  to 
men  in  the  flesh,  but  iive  according  to 
God  in  the  spirit.    1 1'et.  iv.  6. 

David's  words  are  highly  poetical  and  figurative,  representing 
the  dead  as  entirely  separated  from  eartlily  scenes,  employments, 
and  society ;  and  especially  as  giving,  so  far  as  visible  and 
material  things  are  concerned,  no  evidence  of  sensation  or 
emotion.     They  speak  of  death  in  its  earthly  aspect. 

The  quotation  from  Ecclesiastes,  Hengstenberg  and  Stuart 
take  as  the  statement  of  an  olijection,  with  a  view  to  refute  it. 
The  bald  literalism  which  mortal-soulists  ap])ly  to  this  passage  is 
simply  suicidal.  For,  it  is  asserted  of  the  dead,  including  the 
saint  as  well  as  the  sinner,  and  without  any  qualification, 
"  Neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward"  Now  a  literal  exegesis 
of  this  language  absolutely  cuts  off  Abraham,  Moses,  David, 
and  all  the  righteous  dead  from  any  future  reward !  We  think 
the  above-named  theorists  would  be  slow  to  admit  this  logical 
result  of  their  methods  of  exposition.  Yet  there  is  qtiite  as 
much  reason  for  insisting  upon  a  literal  interpretiition  of  the 
words  just  cited, as  of  the  clause,  "The  dead  know  not  any  thing." 
17 


194  DISCEEPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

The  true  explanation  of  this  and  kindred  texts  is  the  following: 
Zockler:  "The  author  now  sees  only  tbe  conditions  of  this 
world  " ;  he  speaks  of  man  merely  in  his  relation  to  the  present 
life.  This  interpretation  agrees  admirably  with  the  closing 
words,  "  Neither  have  they  any  more  a  portion  forever  in  any 
thing  that  is  done  under  the  sun."  That  is,  so  far  as  this  world 
is  concerned,  the  dead  have  no  knowledge,  nor  reward,  nor 
portion.  They  are  as  completely  severed  from  earthly  affairs, 
as  if  they  had  passed  into  extinction. 

The  quotation  from  Isaiah,  is  the  language  of  king  Hezekiah 
of  whose  "inspiration"  there  is  no  proof. 

Of  the  affirmative  passages,  the  first  should  be  rendered,  "  I 
^vill  go  down  into  sheol  unto  my  son  mourning." 

Prof.  Tayler  Lewis  :  ^  "  Jacob  was  going  to  his  son  ;  he  was 
still  his  son ;  there  is  yet  a  tie  between  him  and  his  father ;  he 
is  still  spoken  of  as  a  personality ;  he  is  still  regarded  as  having 
a  being  somehow  and  somewhere."  ...  "It  was  not  to  his  son 
in  his  grave,  for  Joseph  had  no  gi-ave.  His  body  was  supposed 
to  be  lying  somewhere  in  the  desert,  or  torn  in  pieces,  or  carried 
off,  by  the  wild  beasts." 

Herder:^  "Abraham  was  gathered  to  his  fathers,^  though  he 
was  not  buried  with  them,  and  Jacob  wished  to  go  down  to  the 
realm  of  shades  to  his  beloved  son,  although  he  supposed  him 
to  have  been  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  beasts."  In  a  word,  Jacob 
expected,  as  a  disembodied  sj)irit,  to  meet  and  recognize  the 
spirit  of  his  son  In  the  luidcrworld.  The  same  idea  pervades 
David's  words  in  2  Sam.  xii.  concerning  his  child.  As  to  1  Sam. 
xxviii.,  apparently  the  soul  of  the  ]iro])het  was  permitted  to 
nturn  from  sheol,  and  announce  to  the  terrified  Saul  his  im- 

'  In  Lnu^rc  on  Genesis,  p.  5S5. 

'^  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  i.  17!). 

'  Aljier,  commciuinfr  on  this  expression,  after  ciiinjj  the  cases  of  Abra- 
hiiin  atui  Isaac,  of  wlioin  lan^rua;,^' similar  is  used,  adds :  "Tlicse  instances 
iMi::Iit  lie  nniltirilicd.  Tlicy  prove  tiiat  to  he  '  ^rathered  unto  one's  fathers,' 
means  to  descend  into  slicol,  and  join  there  llie  hosts  of  the  departed."  — 
Hist,  of  jioct.  of  lui.  Life,  p.  I.VJ. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  195 

pending  destruction.  The  reproof  and  the  prediction  are  exactly 
in  keeping  with  the  character  of  Samuel,  and  show  that  he  knew 
whereof  he  affirmed.  He  had  not,  therefore,  in  death  parted 
with  his  knowledge. 

Keil :  ''  The  modern  orthodox  commentators  are  unanimous 
in  the  opinion  that  the  deceased  prophet  did  really  appear,  and 
announce  the  destruction  of  Saul,  not,  however,  in  consequence 
of  the  magical  arts  of  the  witch,  but  through  a  miracle  wrought 
by  the  omnipotence  of  God."  Lord  Arthur  Hervey  in  Bible 
Commentary,  and  Archbishop  Trench  in  ''  Shipwrecks  of  Faith," 
concur  in  this  view.  This  is  far  the  most  natural  and  reason- 
able explanation.  Saul's  sin  of  "necromancy"^  was  thus  made 
the  occasion  and  commencement  of  his  lumishment. 

"We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  narrative  of  Dives  in  Luke 
xvi.  presupposes  the  retention  of^  knowledge  by  departed  souls. 

Alford  interprets  1  Pet.  iv.  6,  of  the  souls  of  the  antediluvians, 

shut  up    in   hades,  to   whom  Christ   made    the    proclamation 

referred  to  in  chapter  iii.  17,  18.     This  interpretation  assumes 

the  possession  of  knowledge  by  disembodied  spirits. 

Exercise  no  mental  powers.  Do  exercise  them. 

Tlie  dead  praise  not  the  Lord,  neither  Dead  tliinf/s  are  formed  from  under 
any  that  go  dowu  into  silence.  I's.  cxv.  the  waters,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof. 
1".  Job  xxvi.  5. 

His  hreatli  poeth  forth,  he  returneth  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee 
to  his  earth;  in  that  very  day  his  to  meet ///«>  at  thv  coming:  it  stirretli 
thoughts  perish.    Ps.  c.\.lvi.  4,  up  llic  dead  for  tlioe.  . . .  All  tliey  shall 

speak  and  .^ay  unto  thee.  Art  thiiii  also 
become  weak  as  we?  Art  thou  become 
like  unto  us.     Isa.  xiv  9  10, 

And  behold,  there  talked  with  him 
two  men.  which  were  Moses  and  Klias. 
Wln>  ajijieaicd  in  glory,  and  spake  if 
his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish 
at  Jerusalem.    Luke  ix.  30.  3L 

For  he  is  not  a  did  of  the  dead,  but 
of  the  living:  for  all  live  unto  him. 
Luke  XX.  38. 

The  first  passage  is  a  voice  from  out  the  twilight  of  the  Old 
Dispensation.  Life  and  immortality  not  having  been  fully 
revealed  as  yet,  the  autlior  spoke  according  to  his  degree  of 
knowledge  and  illumination. 

Li  the  second  text,  tiie  "  thoughts  that  perish  "  are  the  wicked 

'  See  Law  in  Deut.  xviii.  10-12. 


196  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE, 

man's  plans  and  j^urposes  which  come  to  naught  at  liis  decease. 
Hengstenberg :  ''  The  thoughts  which  go  to  the  grave  with  the 
dying  man  are  his  vain  projects."  ^ 

In  the  case  of  the  rich  fool,"  his  "  thoughts "  of  building 
larger  barns,  and  of  many  years  of  ease  and  prosperity,  —  all  his 
selfish  and  worldly  schemes,  —  '•  perished  "  m  that  same  night. 

Delitzsch  renders  Job  xxvi.  5,  thus :  "  The  shades  are  put  to 
pain,  deep  under  the  waters  and  their  inhabitants."  With  this 
rendering  Barnes,  Conant,  and  Noyes  substantially  agree. 

Isa.  xiv.  9  is  rendered  by  Delitzsch,  "  The  kingdom  of  the 
dead  below  is  all  in  uproar  on  account  of  thee,  to  meet  thy 
coming ;  it  stirreth  up  the  shades  for  thee."  Similarly  Hender- 
son, Noyes,  and  other  critics.  Now  the  Hebrew  term  "  rej^haim," 
rendered  "  dead "  in  our  version  of  the  last  two  texts,  means 
according  to  the  best  Hebraist^  not  simply  the  dead,  but  "  that 
part  of  man  which  survives  death."  ^ 

As  to  the  first  text  from  Luke,  all  that  need  be  said  is  this ; 
Moses  had  been  dead  nearly  fifteen  centuries.  But  the  disciples 
now  see  and  recognize  him,  and  hear  him  speak.  It  does  not, 
therefore,  seem  probable  that  Moses  became  extinct  at  death, 
but  that  his  soul  survived  and  continued  to  exercise  its 
faculties.  Otherwise,  it  would  seem  that  his  identity  must  have 
been  lost  at  death  ;  and  that  for  him  —  the  original  self-same 
Moses  —  there  could  be  no  after  life. 

'  In  Isa.  Iv.  7,  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  anrighteous  man 
his  thouf^hts,"  the  term  "  thoujrhts  "  is  used  in  a  similar  bad  sense.  Accord- 
ing to  litcralistic  principles,  this  passaj^e  amounts  to  an  exhortation  to 
stoj)  thinkimj  ! 

*  See  Luke  xii.  16--20. 

'  Professor  Conant,  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Article  "  Dead,"  says  the  term 
means  "  disembodied  spirits  separated  from  the  body  at  death,  and  con- 
tinuing; to  live  in  a  separate  existence."  Fuerst:  "A  shadow,  shadowy 
being."  He  adds  that,  in  the  two  passages  Just  referred  to,  tliese  shades 
are  represented  as  stirred  up  out  of  their  rest,  and  as  feeling  the  adminis- 
trarivc  agency  of  Ood.  Gesenius :  "  The  shades,  ntroie.t,  dwelling  in  hades, 
whom  the  Hebrews  supposed  to  be  destitute  of  blood  and  animal  life, 
but  yet  not  wholly  wiihout  some  faculrics  of  mind."  See,  also,  Boettcher, 
"  De  Inferis,"  pp.  04-100. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  197 

Luke  XX.  38 ;  He  is  not  a  God  of  extinct  or  no7i-exi stent 
beings,  therefore  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  still  living. 
The  soul  then  survives  the  body,  and  a  resurrection  is  possible.^ 
As  Lavater  and  Stier  well  say,  the  passage  is  a  "weighty 
testimony  against  the  '  sleep  of  the  soul '  in  the  intermediate 
state."  The  preceding  passages  clearly  presuppose  the  con- 
scious activity  of  departed  souls. 

In  darkness  and  silence.  In  glory  and  blessedness. 

There  the  prisoners    rest    together;  Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  coun- 

theyliear  not  the  voice  of  the  oppressor,  sel,  and  afterward  receive  me  to  glory. 

Job  iii.  18.  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24. 

Before  1  go  whence  1  shall  not  return,  The  path  of  the  just  is  as  the  shining 

even  to  the  land  of  darkness,  and  the  light,  that  shineth  more  and  more  unto 

shadow  of  death.     Job  x.  21.  the  perfect  day.     Trov.  iv.  18. 

Shall  thy  loving-kindness  be  declared  Whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body, 

in  tlie  grave?    or  thy  faithfulness  in  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord.    2  Cor. 

destruction?     Shall    thy    wonders    be  v.  6. 

known  in  tlie  dark?  and  thy  righteous-  For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die 

ness  in  the  land  of  forgetfuluess?    I's.  is  gain.    Fbil.  i.  21. 
Ixxxviii.  11,  12. 

Of  Job's  authority  as  a  religious  teacher  we  have  previously 
spoken.  As  to  the  language  cited  from  the  eighty-eighth 
Psalm,  it  is  Oriental  poetry,  therefore  hyperbolical  and  intensely 
figurative.  To  interpret  it  literally,  is  to  do  it  the  utmost  pos- 
sible violence.  For  example,  in  the  fifth  verse  it  is  said  of 
the  ''  slain  "  that  God  remembers  them  no  more ;  in  the  sixth 
verse,  the  Psalmist  represents  himself  as  "  in  the  lowest  pit,  in 
darkness,  in  the  deeps."  Upon  these  latter  words  Hengstenberg 
says,  "  the  grave  of  deep  places,  in  verse  6,  is  sheol  deep  in  the 
earth,  and  '  the  dark  places '  are  the  dark  places  of  sheol." 
But  was  the  Psalmist  already  in  sheol,  the  underworld  ?  This 
would  be  the  absurd  conclusicin  to  which  a  rigid  literalism 
would  lead. 

On  the  theory  that  the  dead  are  unconscious,  in  darkness 
and  silence,  the  "path  of  the  just"  instead  of  growing  brighter 
"  unto  the  perfect  day,"  is  disrupted  at  death  by  a  fearful  chasm 
of  black  non-existence.  In  place  of  a  continuous  shining  track 
of  light,  we  see  a  yawning  abyss  of  unfathomable  gloom.  Kor 
would  Paul  lying  unconscious  in  the  grave  be  "  present  with 

*  Consult  Alford's  significunt,  but  concise,  comment  on  this  text. 
17* 


198  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  Lord "  more  truly  than  when  he  was  living  m  the  love, 
service,  and  fellowshii:)  of  Christ.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  it 
would  be  "  gain  "  for  Paul  to  "  die," —  to  relinquish  his  loving, 
tireless,  and  blessed  labor  for  the  Master,  and  go  into  unconscious 
hibernation  or  blank  nonentity,  in  the  cold  sepulchre.  A 
glowing  heart  like  Paul's  would  hardly  count  a  dormant  state, 
like  that  of  '•  The  Seven  Sleepers,"  to  be  '•  gain." 

In  this  connection,  we  give  the  views  of  the  Hebrews,  par- 
ticularly those  of  later  and  more  enlightened  times. 

Lightfoot :  ^  "  It  was  universally  believed  amongst  the  Jews, 
that  pure  and  holy  souls  when  they  left  this  body  went  into 
happiness,  to  Abraham." 

Dr.  Jalm  :  '^   In  sheol  "  the  departed  spirits  rejoice  in  that 

rest  so  much  desired  by  the  Orientals;  and  there  the  living 

hope  to  see  once  more  their  beloved  ancestors  and  children." 

Not  with  Christ.  TJie  righteous  with  him. 

Ye  shall  seek  me;  and,  as  I  said  unto        And  Jesiis  said  unto  him,  Verily,  I 
the    Jews,   Whither  1  go,  yo    cannot    say  unto  thee,To-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
come,  so  now  1  say  to  you.    John  xiii.    me  in  paradise.    Luke  xxiii.  43. 
83.  Stephen,  calling  upon  (lod,  and  say- 

For  David  is  not  ascended  into  the  ing,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.  Acts 
heavens.    Acta  ii.  34.  vii.  59. 

We  are  confident,  /  sat/,  and  willing 
rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and 
to  be  present  with  the  Lord.  2  Cor. 
V.  8. 

For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two, 
having  a  clesirf  to  depart,  and  to  be 
with  Christ;  which  is  far  better.  I'hil. 
i.2ii. 

The  first  text  alludes  to  the  time  subsequent  to  Christ's 
ascension.  Then  he  was  no  longer  visibly  and  personally  with 
them;  whither  he  had  gone  they  could  not -then  go.  Their 
earthly  mission  must  first  be  accomplished. 

David  had  not  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and  his  body  and 
soul  re-united.  lie  had  not  yet  ascended  to  heaven,  and 
entered  vpon  his  full  reward,  but  was  in  the  intermediate  state, 
tranquilly  awaiting  tlte  resurrection. 

The  opposed  texts  show  that  the  righteous  are  at  death,  in  a 
certain  sense  with  Christ,  present  with  the  Lord,  in  "  disem- 

'  Ilor.  Ilcbraicac,  iii.  171  (Gandell's  edition). 
«  Bib.  Archucol.,  Soc.  814. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  199 

bodied  and  imperfect  bliss  "  which  is  a  foretaste  of  complete 
felicity  to  be  awarded  them  at  the  last  day. 

Together  in  one  place.  In  different  places. 

Thp  Loud  will  also  deliver  Israol  with  And  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  boin^ 

thee  into  the  hand  i>f  the  Philistines:  in   torments,  and  seetli    Abraham  :ilar 

and  to-morrow  .'-•/(rt/^  til  .11  and  tliy  sons  oft",  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom.     ..  And 

be  with  me.    1  8am.  x.xviii.  19  beside  all   this,   between  us    and  you 

All  go  unto  one  place;  all  are  of  the  there  is  a  great  gulf  lixed.    Luke  xvi. 

dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  agaiu.    Eccl.  23,  26. 

iii  20.  Judas  by  transgression  fell,  that  he 

might  go  to  his  own  place.     Acts  1.  25. 

The  first  two  passages  teach  that  the  good  and  bad,  at  their 
departure  from  this  life,  go  alike  into  the  intermediate  state, 
but  do  not  assert  that  their  condition  there  is  the  same. 

In  Luke  xvi.  we  see  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  both  in  the 
intermediate  state,  but  one  in  misery,  the  other  in  happiness. 
In  a  certain  sense,  both  went  "  to  one  place  " ;  in  another  sense, 
they  went  to  very  different  places. 

Acts  i.  25,  teaches  that  Judas  went  to  "  his  own  place,"  to 
the  punishment  appropriate  to  his  conduct.  Such  is  the  view 
of  Olshausen,  DeWette,  Livermore,  Barnes,  Ilackett,  Meyer, 
Alford,  and  other  commentators. 

In  the  dust  and  the  grave.  Saints,  with  God. 

And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the        We  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing 

dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake.     Dan.  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and 

xii.  2.  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.    2  Cor. 

All  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  v.  8. 
his  voice.    John  v.  28.  Tliera  also  which  sleep  in  Jesus  will 

God  bring  with  him.    1  Thess.  iv.  14. 

The  quotation  from  Daniel  refers  to  man  in  liis  physical 
organism  and  relations.  As  to  his  material,  bodily  form,  in 
which  he  is  cognizable  by  our  senses,  he  "  sleeps  in  the  dust," 
at  death. 

The  literalistic  exposition  of  the  text  from  Jolm  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  unhuried  dead  are  not  to  l)e  raised.  If  the 
jjhraseology  ''  all  that  are  in  the  graves"  is  to  be  rigidly  pressed, 
then  it  is  a  legitimate  iufei'ence  that  those  who  sleep  beneath 
the  waves  of  ocean,  those  who  were  devoured  by  wUd  beasts, 
those  who  were  burned  at  the  stake,  as  not  being  "  in  the  graves,'' 
will  not  "  hear  iiis  voice  and  come  forth." 

Doubtless  the  expression  is  equivalent  simply  to  "  all    the 


200  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

dead."  The  last  two  texts  imply  that  the  souls  of  departed 
samts  are  with  God,  not  oecessarily  iu  the  highest  rewards 
of  heaven,  but  "  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,"  in  paradise,  joyfully 
awaiting  those  rewai'ds. 

Mesurrection. 

Dead  to  be  raised.  JVof  to  be  raised. 

Thy  dea.d  men sha.\}\i\e,toQether  with        He  that  goeth   down  to  the    prave 

my  dead  body  shall   they  arise.    Isa.    shall  come  up  no  more.    Job  vil.  9. 

xxvi.  19.  Man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not:  till 

JS'ow  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even    the  heavens  l/e  no  more,  they  shall  not 

Moses  shewed  at  the  bush.  Luke  xx  37.    awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep. 

For  since  bv  man  came  death,  by  man     Job  xiv.  12. 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.        'I'liei/  ore  dead,  they  shall  not  live; 
.  .  .  The  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the    the//  <ire  deceased,  they  shall  not  rise, 
dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible.    1    Isa.  xxvi.  14. 

Cor.  XV.  21,  52.  They  that^wear  by  the  sin  of  Sama- 

ria, and  say.  Thy  god,  O  Dan,  livetli; 
and.  The  manner  of  lieer-sheba  liveth; 
even  they  shall  fall,  and  never  rise  up 
again.    Amos  viii.  14. 

The  quotations  from  Job  express  the  opinion,  or  perhaps,  the 
temporary  doubts,  of  a  good,  but  uninspired,  man.  They  can- 
not counterbalance  the  express  statements  of  uispiration. 

Isaiah  asserts  that  certain  foreign  powers,  the  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  etc.,  who  had  oppressed  the  Israelites,  were  de- 
ceased and  should  not  "  rise  "  ;  that  is,  to  resume  their  former 
arUtrary  swmj.  Not  the  resurrection  of  individuals,  but  the 
restoration  of  fallen  despotisms,  is  denied. 

Tlie  text  from  Amos  has  no  reference  to  the  future  world. 
It  predicts  simply  the  irretrievable  overthrow  of  certain  idol- 
aters, in  this  world. 

Universal  resurrection.  A  partial  one. 

The  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
thatareinthegravesshahhearhisvoice,  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake.  Dan. 
uud  shall  come  forth.    John  v.  28,  '^9.        xii.  2. 

According  to  Fuerst,  the  word  translated  "many,"  means 
likewise  crowds  or  masses. 

Calvin :  "  The  word  mani/  seems  here  clearly  put  for  alt." 
Stuart  regards  it  as  "equivalent  to  our  word  multitxides." 
Barnes :  "  There  would  be  a  vast  or  general  resurrection  from 
the  dead  ;  so  much  so  that  the  mind  would  be  interested  mainly 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  great  hosts  who  would  thus  come 
forth." 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


201 


Jesus  raised  first. 

That  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that 
he  should  be  the  first  that  should  rise 
from  the  dead.     Acts  xxvi.  23 

Mow  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead, 
and  become  the  lirst-l'ruits  of  them  that 
slept.    1  Cor.  XV.  20. 


Others  raised  previortshj. 

And  the  Lord  heard  the  voice  of 
Elijah  ;  and  the  soul  of  the  child  came 
into  him  again,  and  he  revived.  1  Kings 
xvii.  22. 

And  they  cast  the  man  into  the  sep- 
ulchre of  Elisha:  and  when  the  man 
was  let  down,  and  touched  the  bones 
of  Elisha,  he  revived,  and  stood  up  on 
his  feet.     2  Kings  xiii.  21. 

And  he  that  was  dead  sat  up,  and 
began  to  speak.  And  he  delivered  him 
to  Ills  mother.    Luke  vii.  15. 

Romans  vi.  9  furnishes  the  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Jesus 
was  the  first  who  rose  from  the  dead  to  die  no  more.  All  others 
who  were  raised,  passed  a  second  time  through  the  gates  of 
death.  Over  him,  death  "  hath  no  more  dominion."  Hence, 
he  is  the  "  first-begotten  of  the  dead,"  the  first  who  was  raised 
to  immortal  life. 

Final  Judgment. 


Ascribed  to  God. 

Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
do  right?    Gen.  xviii.  25. 

The  heavens  shall  declare  his  right- 
eousness :  for  (jod  is  judge  himself. 
Ps.  1.  6. 


To  Christ. 

For  t\w  Father  judgeth  no  man.  but 
hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
Son.     John  v.  22. 

We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  (-  hrist.    Itom.  xiv.  10. 


God  will  judge  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ.^ 


Attributed  to  Christ.  Disclaimed  by  Him. 

When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in        Ye  judge  after  the  flesh;  I  judge  no 
his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with    man.     John  viii.  15 
him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne        And  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and 
of  his  glory:  and  before  him  shall  be    believe   not,    I  judge   him    not:    for   I 
gathered  all  nations:  and  he  shall  sep-    came  not  to  judge   the  world,  but  to 
arate  them  one  from  another,  as  a  shep-    save  the  world.    John  xii.  47. 
herd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats. 
Matt.  XXV.  31,  32. 

And  Jesus  said,  For  judgment  I  am 
come  into  this  world:  that  they  which 
see  not  might  s(>e,  and  that  they  which 
see.  might  be  made  blind.     John  i.x.  39. 

For  we  must  all  ajjpear  bdbre  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ.    2  Cor.  v.  10. 

These  two  classes  of  texts  refer,  the  one  to  the  second,  the 
other  to  the  first  advent  of  our  Lord.  At  his  first  coming,  his 
object  was  to  present  himself,  not  as  the  Judge,  but  as  the 
Saviour,  of  men ;  not  to  condemn  but  to  save  them.  "U'lieu 
he  comes  the  second  lime,  it  will  be  "  in  fiaming  iire,  taking 


*  Acts  xvii.  31;  Kom.  ii.  1(5. 


202        ,  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the 

gospel."  * 

Yet  the  "  judging  of  the  world,"  iiivolvmg  the  condemnation 

of  the  guilty,  was  not  the  ultimate  object  of  Christ's  mission,  but 

rather  a  subordinate  and  incidental  result  of  that  mission. 

Administered  by  God.  By  men  also. 

God  the  Judjie  of  all.     Heb.  xii.  23.  Ve  which  have  folknved  me  in  the 

And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,    repreneration.    when   the  Son   of  man 

stand  before  God:  and  the  books  were    shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye 

opened.    Kev.  xx.  12.  also    shall    sit    upon    twelve    thrones. 

judging    the  twelve    tribes  of  Israel! 
Alatt.  xix.  28. 

That  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  in  hiy  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
Luke  xxii.  30. 

But  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all 
things,  yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no 
man.     1  Cor.  ii   15. 

Do  ye  not  know  that  the  saints  shall 
judge  the  world?  and  if  the  world  shall 
be  judged  by  you,  are  ye  unworthy  to 
judge  the  smallest  matters?  Know  ye 
not  that  we  shall  judge  angels?  1  Cor. 
Vi.  2,  3. 

Barnes  takes  Matt.  xix.  28,  as  imiilying  not  so  much  an 
actual  exercise  of  the  power  of  passing  judgment,  as  the  honor 
attached  to  the  office.  The  apostles  should,  at  the  last  day,  be 
relatively  honored  as  judges  are. 

In  1  Cor.  ii.  15,  the  Greek  word  employed  is  the  same  wliich 
in  the  jDreceding  verse  is  translated  "  discerned."  It  has  no 
reference  to  the  final  judgment,  but  denotes  spiritual  insight  and 
discrimination  in  the  present  life. 

As  to  the  last  citation,  it  may  be  taken  simply  as  asserting 
that  the  saints,  by  their  example,  would  "  judge,"  i.e.  condemn, 
sinful  men  and  angels.  This  interpretation  is  corroborated  by 
Matt.  xii.  41,  42,  which  as.serts  that  the  Ninevites  and  the  queen 
of  Sheba  should  rise  up  in  tlic  judgment  with  that  generation 
and  "  condemn  "  it ;  that  is,  by  their  example. 

Chrysostom :  "  The  saints  shall  judge  the  world  by  their 
exemplary  judgment,  because  by  their  example  the  perfidious- 
ness  of  the  world  shall  be  condemned." 

Whately:''  "Not  that  he  meant,  or  was  ever  understood  to 

>  2  Thess.  i.  8.  -  Future  State,  pp.  133-188. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  203 

mean,  that  these  persons  would  themselves  take  a  share  in  the 
final  judgment ;  but  that  tlieir  conduct  would  be  a  coudemnation 
of  the.  imbelieving  generation,  who  rejected  one  greater  than 
Jonas,  and  than  Solomon."  In  another  paragraph,  the  same 
writer  strongly  supports  this  explanation,  and  continues :  "Any 
one  who  takes  the  right  course,  by  so  doing,  condemns,  —  in 
the  New  Testament  language,  'judges,'  —  those  who,  with 
equal  opportunities,  choose  the  wrong.  This  was  the  case  with 
the  Corinthian  Christians  (or  saints)  ;  who,  by  embracmg  the 
gospel,  judged  (in  tliis  sense)  their  unbelieving  neighbors,  to 
whom  it  had  been  proposed,  and  who  rejected  it." 

This  interpretation  relieves  the  saints  of  actual  participation 
in  the  work  of  judging  mankind. 

Even  if,  with  Alford  and  many  critics,  we  feel  constrained 
by  the  tenor  of  the  passage,  to  admit  tliis  actual  participation, 
still,  since  the  power  which  the  saints  exercise  is  all  derived 
from  God,  the  work  of  judgment  may  properly  be  attributed 
wholly  to  him. 

Future  Punishment f  —  Its  Xature. 

Continued  misery.  End  of  consciousness. 

So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  world :  For  lo,  thine  enemies  O  Lord,  for  lo, 

the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever  thine  enemies  shall  j)erish.    I's.  xcii.  9. 

the  wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  And  he  shall  bring  upon  them  their 

shall  cast  tlicm  into  tlie  furnace  of  tire,  own  iniquity,  and  shall  cut  them  ofl'  iu 

Matt.  xiii.  49,  50.  their  own  wickedne.'S.     Ps.  xciv.  23. 

And  shall  cut  him  asunder,  and  ap-  All  the  wicked  will  he  destroy.    Ps. 

point  him  his  portion  with  the  hypo-  cxlv.  20. 

crites.    Matt.  xxiv.  51.  They  that  forsake  the  Ix)rd  shall  be 

And  cast  ye  the  unprofitable  servant  consumed.     Isa  i.  28. 

into  outer   darkness:    there    shall   be  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die. 

weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.    Matt.  Ezek.  xviii.  20. 

XXV.  30.  Who  shall  be  punished  with  over- 

The  same  shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  lasting  destruction.    2  Tliess.  i.  9. 

the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  poured  out  The  day  of  judgment  and  perdition 

without  mixture  into  the  cup  of  hi.s  of  ungodly  men.  2  Pet.  iii.  7. 
indignation  ;  and  he  shall  be  tormented 
with  lire  and  brimstone  in  the  presence 
of  the  holy  angels,  and  in  the  jjresence 
of  the  Lamb:  And  the  smoke  of  their 
torment  aj^cendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever : 
and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night. 
Key.  xiv.  10,  11. 

According  to  the  received  view,  the  texts,  at  the  right,  while 
imi)lyiiig  ruin,  irremediable  overthrow,  do  not  mean  annihilation 
or  extinction.     Mortal-soulists,  or    "  anniliilationists  "  as    they 


204  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

are  commonly  desiguated,  interpret  these  texts,  on  the  contrary, 
with  a  bald  and  rigid  literalism,  inferring  from  them  the  actual 
annihilation  of  the  wicked.  ]\Ir.  Hudson,'  the  ablest  author  of 
this  class,  observes :  "  The  literal  sense  of  the  terms  in  question 
is  manifestly  the  true  one  in  most  instances."  Blain  asserts 
that  "  death  "  is  "  extinction  of  being,  soul  and  body." 

Dr.  Ives  -  says  that  death  is  "  the  cessation  of  existence,"  the 
first*  death  being  a  temporary,  the  second  a  final  cessation. 
These  definitions  are  founded  upon  a  literalistic,  though  not 
self-consistent,  exegesis  of  scripture. 

To  show  the  irrelevancy  and  unsoundness  of  the  arguments 
employed  by  writers  of  this  class,  the  following  examples  of 
scripture  usage  are  introduced.  The  reader  will  see,  at  a  glance, 
to  what  absurdities  literalistic  interpretation,  if  consistently 
carried  out,  would  lead  its  advocates. 

The  wicked  perish.  Tlie  righteous  perish. 

So  let  all   thine  enemies  perish,   O  There  is  a  just  juan  that  perisheth  in 

Lord.    Judg.  v.  31.  his  righteousness.     Eccl.  vii.  15. 

liut  the   wicked    shall  perish.      Ps.  The  righteous  perisheth,  and  no  man 

xxxvii.  20.  layeth  i7  to  heart.    Isa.  Ivii.  1. 

Jh   that  speaketh  lies  shall  perish.  The  good  man  is  perished  out  of  the 

I'rov.  xix.  9.  earth,    ilicah  vii.  2. 

In  all  these  cases,  the  same  Hebrew  term,  "  abadh,"  is  used. 

Now,  if  this  term,  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  necessarily  im- 
plies that  the  wicked  are  to  be  annihilated,  it  is  clear  that,  in 
the  second,  it  implies,  for  the  same  reasons  and  with  the  same 
force,  the  annihilation  of  the  righteous.  Such  is  the  logical 
conclusion  to  which  literalism  conducts  us. 

Sinners  annihilated.  Annihilated  objects,  existing. 

Likewise  the  fool  and    the  brutish        And  with  all  lost  things  of  thy  broth- 
person  perish.     I's.  xlix.  10(11).^  er's,  which  he  hath  lost,  and  thou  hast 
For,  lo,  they  that  are  far  from  thee    found,  shalt  thou  do  likewise.    L)eut. 
hhall  perish.     I's.  Ixxili.  27.  xxii.  3. 

A  false  witness  shall  perish.    Prov.       And  the  asses  of  Kish,  Saul's  father 
xxi.  28.  were  lost.  . .  .  And  as  for  thine  asses 

that  were  lost  three  days  ago,  set  not 
thy  mind  on  them;  for  they  are  found. 
1  Sam.  ix.  3,  2U. 

Here  the  same  word  "  jibadh  "  rendered  "  perish  "  in  the  first 
series,  is  translated  "  lost "  in  the  second  scries.     If  now  in  the 

'  Debt  and  Grace,  p.  182.  "  Bible  Doctrine  of  the  Soul,  p.  42. 

^  We  i)Ut  in  parenthesis  the  number  of  the  verse  as  it  is  in  the  Hebrew. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  205 

one  case  it  implies  the  extinction  of  sinners,  in  the  other  it 

unplies  the  extinction  of  the  "  lost  things  "  and  of  Kish's  asses. 

It  would  seem  that  the  process  of  annihilation,  in  the  latter 

cases,  could  hardly  have   been  fatal  to   the  existence  of   the 

objects  mentioned,  for  they  are  afterwards  "  found." 

Wicked  cut  off.  The  Messiah  cut  off. 

For  evil  doers  shall  be  cut  off.  .  .  .  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks 

When  the  wicked  are  cut  off,  thou  Shalt  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  but  not  for 

see  it.    Ps.  xxxvii.  9,  34.  himself.    Dan.  ix.  26. 

In  these  three  cases,  "  karath,"  is  rendered  "  cut  off."  If  the 
first  texts  teach  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  the  last  implies 
equally  strongly  that  the  Messiah  was  annihilated! 

Wicked  destroyed.  Persons  destroyed,  yet  alive. 

Thou  Shalt  destroy  them  that  speak  He  hath  destroyed  me  on  every  side, 

leasing.    Ps.  v.  6.  Job  xix.  10.                         ^  ,      ,     ,      - 

All  the  wicked  will  he  destroy.    Ps.  My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of 

cxlv.  20.  knowiedore.    Hosea  iv.  6. 

And  he  shall    destroy    the   sinners  O  Israel  thon  hast  destroyed  thpelf; 

thereof  out  of  it.    Isa.  xiii.  9.  but  in  me  is  thine  help.    Hos.  xiii  9. 

If  the  Hebrew  words,  and  their  English  equivalent "  destroy," 
used  in  these  cases,  imply  extinction  or  termination  of  conscious 
existence,  we  have,  in  the  last  citation,  a  people  who,  although 
they  had  been  annihilated,  were  yet  in  a  hopeful  condition. 

An  odd  kind  of  "annihilation"  that  must  be,  which  is  still 
susceptible  of  relief  !  The  sense  clearly  is,  "  Thou  hast  brought 
great  calamities  upon  thyself,  but  in  me  is  thuie  help." 

Sinners  destroyed.  Inanimate  objects  destroyed. 

But  the  transgressors  shall  be  des-  And  Pharaoh's  servants  said  unto 
troyed  tofrethor.     Ps.  xxxvii.  38.  him.  .  .  .  Knowest  thou  not  yet  that 

If  any  man  defile  tlie  temple  of  God,    Ef;ypt  is  destroyed?    Ex.  x.  7. 
him  shall  Ciod  destroy.    1  Cor.  iii.  17.  Am  1  now  come  up  without  the  Lord 

Who  shall  bo  punished  with  ever-  against  this  place  to  destroy  it?  The 
lasting  destruction.    2  Thess.  i.  9.  Loud  said  to  me,  Go  up  against  tliis 

land,  and  destroy  it.    2  Kings  xviii.  2."). 
Babylon  is  suddenly  fallen  and  des- 
troyed; .  .  .  take  balm  for  her  pain,  if  so 
be  .she  may  be  healed.    Jer.  li.  8. 

And  shouldest  destroy  them  which 
destroy  the  earth.    Kev.  xi.  18. 

It  need  not  be  said  that  in  these  cases,  the  literalistic  inter- 
pretation of  the  terms  "  destroy  "  and  ''  destruction  "  woidd  land 
us  in  the  grossest  exegetical  absurdities.' 

'  An  cxami)!e  of  similar  kind  is  funiishcil  by  the  literalistic  exposition 
of  LIul.  iv.  1-3.    The  prophet  declares  that  the  wicked  shall  be  buraed, 
18 


206  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Evil  cloerfs  consumed.  Things  untliout  life  consumed. 

Let  the  sinners  be  consumed  out  of       There  shall  be  an  overflowing;  shower 
theeartli.     Ps.  civ.  35.  in  mine  anger,  and  great  liailstones  in 

They  that  forsalve  the  Loed  shall  be    ?»//  fury  to  consume  it.    So  will  1  break 
consumed.    Isa.  i.  28.  down  the  wall.    Ezek.  xiii  13,  14. 

And  the  scorner  is  consumed.    Isa.        I  have   heard   all    thy    blasphemies 
xxix.  20.  which   thou  hast  spoken   against  the 

mountains  of  Israel,  saying,  They  are 
laid  desolate,  they  are  given  us  to  con- 
sume.   Ezek.  XXXV.  12. 

Of  course,  a  wall  "  consumed  "  by  "  hail-stones,"  and  mountains 

"  consumed "  by  men,  would  hardly  be  understood  as  having 

ceased  to  exist. 

Wicked  "  toas  not"  Enoch  "  teas  not." 

Yet  he  passed  away,  and  lo,  he  was  And  Enoch  walked  with  God:  and 

not:  yea  I  sought  him,  but  he  could  he  n-an  not;  for  God  took  him.    Gen. 

not  be  found.    Vs.  xxxvii.  36.  v.  24. 

The  Hebrew  for  "  was  not,"  is  exactly  the  same  in  these  two 

cases.     Isow  if  the  first  passage  teaches  the  extinction  of  the 

wicked,  the  second  teaches  tliat  Enoch  became  extinct.     Yet  so 

far  from  this,  we  know  that  he  was  "  translated  that  he  should 

not  see  death."  ^ 

Wicked  devotired.  Pious  devoured. 

And  fire  came  down  from  God  out        If  a  man  bring  you  into  bondage,  if 
of  heaven,  and  devoured  them.    IJev.    a  man  devour  i/oit     2  Cor.  xi.  20. 
XX.  9.  15"t  i*  yp  bite  and  devour  one  another, 

take  heed  that  ye  be  not  consumed  one 
of  another.    Gal.  v.  15 

In  these  three  instances,  kindred  words  of  equal  intensity  are 
employed.     The  inference  is  not  difficult. 

God's  adversaries  devoured.  Widoms'  houses  devoured. 

Judgment     and    fiery    indignation,  Beware  of  the  scribes,  . . .  which  de- 

whicli  shall  devour  the  adversaries,  vour  wijiows' houses.  Mark  xii.  38, 40. 
Heb.  X.  27. 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  Greek  verb  of  the  first  text 
occurs  in  the  second  in  a  strengthened  form.'"*  So  that,  if  the 
first  text  teaches  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  the  second 
teaches  that  "  widows'  houses  "  were  doubly  annihilated  by  the 
scribes. 

and  adds  that  they  shall  "he  ashes,"  (not  "  as  ashes  ")  under  the  feet  of 
tlic  rii^htcous.  The  folly  of  takini^:  such  lany^iairc  literally  need  not  be 
pointed  out. 

'  See  Heb.  xi.  5. 

*  "  iffdla  "  in  Ilcb.  x.  27,  "  KUTf<T0iw  "  in  Mark  xii.  40;  2  Cor.  xi.  20. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


207 


Sinners  devoured.  A  forest  devoured  persons. 

But  if  ye  rpfiife  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be        For  the  battle  was  there  scattered 

devoured  with  the  sword.    Isa.  i.  20.        over  the  face  of  all  the  country:  and 

Therefore  all  they  that  devour  thee    the  wood  devoured  more  people  that 

shall  be  devoured.    Jer.  xxx.  16  day  than  the  sword  devoured.    2  Sam. 

xv'iii.  8. 

In  all  these  passages,  the  same  Hebrew  verb  "  akal "  is  used. 
In  the  latter  instance,  literalism,  it  need  not  be  remarked,  would 
make  nonsense  of  the  narrative.  Yet  there  is  as  much  reason 
for  a  literal  explication  of  the  latter  text  as  of  the  two  former 
texts. 


WicJced  torn  and  broken. 

Thy  risrht  hand,  O  Lord,  hath  dashed 
in  pieces  the  enemy.    Ex.  xv.  6. 

The  adversaries  of  tl>e  Lord  shall  be 
broken  to  jiieces.    1  Sam.  ii.  10. 

Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of 
iron;  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 
like  a  potter's  vessel.    Ps.  ii.  9. 

Consider  this,  ye  that  forget  (jod,  lest 
I  tear  you  iu  pieces.    Ps.  1.  22. 


Righteous  likewise. 

He  teareth  vie  in  his  wrath :  ...  he 
hath  broken  me  asunder:  be  hath  also 
taken  vie  by  my  neck,  and  shaken  me 
to  pieces;  "...  he  cleaveth  my  reins 
asunder,  and  doth  not  spare;  he  pour- 
eth  out  my  jrall  upon  the  jrround.  He 
b.-eaketh  me  with  breach  upon  breach. 
Job  xvi.  9,  12.  13,  14. 

They  bieak  in  pieces  thy  people,  O 
Lord.    Ps  xciv.  5. 


Here  language  equally  strong  and  intense  is  applied  to  the 
calamities  befalling  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  If  in  the 
former  case  extinction  of  existence  is  intended,  why  not  in  the 
latter  case  ? 


Wicked  broken  in  pieces. 
Associate  yourselves,  O  je  people, 
and  ye  shall  be  broken  iu  pieces.    Isa. 
vui."9. 


Objects  broken,  yet  still  existing. 

The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken 
spirit:  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart. 
Ps.  Ii.  17. 

And  shall  devour  the  whole  earth, 
and  shall  tread  it  down,  and  break  it 
in  pieces.    Dan.  vii.  23. 

To  show  the  complete  absurdity  of  insisting  upon  the  literal 
interpretation  of  these  and  similar  expressions,  it  need  only  be 
mentioned  that  Ps.  Ii.  17,  "A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart," 
is,  when  rendered  literally,  "  a  heart  broken  in  pieces  and 
shivered." ' 


Wicked  blotted  out. 

And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy 
man  whom  I  have  created  from  the 
face  of  the  earth :  both  man  and  beast, 
and  the  creeping  thinj;.     (ion  vi.  7. 

Wliosoevcr  liath  sinned  ajrainst  me, 
him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book.  Ex. 
xxxii.  33 

Let  tliem  be  blotted  out  of  the  book 
of  the  living.    Ps.  Ixix  28  (29). 


Things  blotted  out,  yet  existing. 

I  will  utterly  put  out  the  remem- 
brance of  A  malek  from  under  heaven. 
Ex.  xvii.  14. 

Hlot  out  all  mine  iniquities.  Ps.  Ii. 
9(11). 

I  liave  blotted  out.  as  a  thick  cloud, 
thv  tran<!rres^ions      Isa.  xHv.  22. 

Ihotting  out  the  hand-writing  of  or- 
dinances that  was  against  us.  Col. 
ii    14. 


'  Professor  Barilctt,  "  Life  uiid  IXaili  I'.temal,"  p.  98. 


208  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

In  all  the  cases  cited  here  from  the  Old  Testament  the  ex- 
pressions "  destroy,"  "  blot  out,"  "  utterly  put  out,"  are  trans- 
lations of  the  Hebrew  term  ''  machah." 

But  this  word  does  not  imply  annihilation  ;  for  when  "  sins  " 
are  "  blotted  out "  they  are  not  annihilated.  A  fact,  a  deed,  is 
not  susceptible  of  annihilation.  It  may  be  forgiven,  perchance 
forgotten,  but  not  recalled  or  undone. 

When  the  "  ordinances  "  of  the  Mosaic  law  were  "  blotted 
out,"  they  did  not  cease  to  exist ;  they  merely  became  inopera- 
tive. Nor  does  the  declaration  that  God  would  "  utterly  put 
out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  "  imply  the  extinction  of  that 
remembrance  ;  for  the  declaration  itself  perpetuates  that  re- 
membrance. 

Wicked  have  an  end.  The  rifjhteous  also. 

Amalek  teas  the  first  of  the  nations,  Let  nie  die  the  death  of  the  righteous, 

but  his  latter  end  shaU  be  that  he  perish  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his.    Xura. 

forever.    Num.  xxiv.  20.  xxiii.  10. 

The  end  of  the  wicked  shall  be  cut  So  the  Lord  blessed  the  latter  end 

off.     Ps.  xxxvii.  38.  of  Job  more  than  his  beginning.    Job 

Whose  end  is  destruction,    rhil.  iii.  xlii.  12 

19-  For  the  end  of  that  man  is  peace. 

Ps.  xxxvii.  37. 

Does  the  woixi  "end"  necessarily  imply  termination  of  being  1 

If  so,  the  fate  of  the  righteous  would  not  be  an  enviable  one. 

Wicked  die,  are  dead.  Righteous  die,  are  dead. 

And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to 

dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.     Eph.  ii.  1.  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 

But. she  that  liveth  in  pleasure  is  dead  God.     Uom.  vi.  11. 

while  she  liveth.    1  Tim.  v.  G.  I  protest  by  your  rejoicing  which  I 

I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  hast  a  have  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  1  die 

name  that  thou  livest,  and  art  dead,  daily.    1  Cor.  xv.  31. 

Kev.  iii.  1.  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid 

with  Christ  in  God.    Col.  iii.  3. 

From*  these  texts  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  persons  may  "  die," 
and  be  "dead,"  yet  all  the  while  be  physically  alive  and 
conscious.  It  follows  that  the  phrase  "  living  death,"  though 
scouted  by  certain  writers,  conveys,  nevertheless,  a  perfectly 
reasonable  and  scriptural  idea. 

We  have  now  passed  rapidly  in  review  the  strongest,  and 
apparently  the  most  conclusive,  proof-texts*  adduced  by  anni- 
hilationists,  and  we  reacli  tlie  following  results : 

'  Our  present  limits  allow  only  a  hasty  •;liuiceat  the  subject.    The  author 


DOCTRINAL    DISCREPANCIES,  209 

(1)  Those  persons  who  undertake  to  build  a  doctrine  upoa 
the  figures  of  poetry  and  of  Oriental  idiom  are  expending  their 
labor  just  as  wisely  as  they  would  be  in  endeavoring  to  make  a 
pyramid  stand  upon  its  apex.  Their  foundation  is  inadequate, 
and  their  efforts  nugatory. 

(2)  As  to  the  Hebrew  terms  rendered  in  our  version,  "  con- 
sume," "  cut  off,"  "  die,"  "  destroy,"  "  devour,"  "  perish,"  and  the 
like,  neither  in  the  original  terms,  nor  in  their  English  equiva- 
lents, nor  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand,  is  there 
inherent  force  or  aught  else  which  necessitates,  or  even  warrants, 
the  interpretation  of  them  as  implying  annihilation,  extinction 
of  consciousness,  or  cessation  of  existence. 

(3)  On  the  literalistic  hypothesis  these  words  prove  too 
much,  and  so  prove  nothing.  For  they  would  prove  that  the 
Messiah  was  anniliilated  at  his  crucifixion ;  that  the  righteous 
are  annihilated  at  death ;  that  after  the  Israelites  had  annihi- 
lated themselves  there  was  still  "  help  "  for  them ;  with  all 
manner  of  similar  absurdities. 

Instruments. 

Shame  and  disgrace.  A  whirlwind. 

Let  them  be  confounded  and  troubled  A  whirlwind  of  the  Lord  is  pone 
forever;  yea,  let  them  be  put  to  shame,  forth  in  fury,  even  a  prievous  whirl- 
Ps.  Ixxxiii.  17.  wind:  It  shall  fall  grievously  upon  the 

Some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con-    head  of  the  wicked.    Jcr.  xxiii.  19. 
tempt.     Dan.  xii.  2.  For  they  have  sown   the  wind,  and 

Friend,  how  earnest  thou  in  hither,    they  shall  reap  the  whirlwind.    Hos. 
not  having  a  wedding-garment?     And    viii.  7. 
he  was  si)epchlcss      Matt.  xxii.  12. 

Of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be 
ashamed,  when  lie  cometh  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels. 
Mark  viii.  38. 

These  and  the  sulisequent  texts  illustrate  different  aspects  or 

relations  of  the  punishment  which  will  overtake  the  wicked. 

A  worm.  A  tempest. 

Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain  snares, 
fire  IS  not  quenched.  Mark  ix.  44  (also  fire  and  brimstone,  and  a  horrible  tem- 
40,  48).  pest.     I's.  xi.  6. 

So  persecute  thr>m  with  thy  tempest, 
and  make  them  afraid  with  tliy  storm. 
Ps.  Ixxxiii.  15. 

contemplates  publishing  hereafter  a  work  in  which  the  history  of  Thne- 
topsj'chism,  and  the  arguments  adduced  in  its  favor,  will  be  more  fully 
investigated. 

18* 


210 


DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 


Darl:7iess. 

But  the  children  of  tlie  kingdom  shall 
bo  cast  out  into  outer  darkness:  there 
shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth 
Matt.  viii.  12. 

Hind  him  hand  and  foot,  and  take 
him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer  dark- 
nes.«.     Matt.  xxii.  13. 

And  cast  ye  the  unprofitable  servant 
into  outer  darkness.    Matt.  xxv.  30 


Fire. 

The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his 
angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
kingdom  all  things  tliat  offend,  and 
them  which  do  iniquity;  And  shall 
cast  them  into  a  furnace  "of  fire.  Matt, 
xiii.  41.  42. 

Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  ever- 
lasting lire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and 
his  angels.    Matt  xxv.  41. 

And  whosoever  was  not  found  writ^ 
ten  in  the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire.    Kev.  xx.  15. 

"  Darkness  "  is,  in  one  respect,  and  "  fire  "  in  another  respect, 
a  fit  emblem  of  the  punishment. 

Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson :  ^  "  The  laws  of  language  require  us  to 
understand  from  these  very  metaphors,  that  the  future  state  of 
the  ungodly  will  be  one  of  conscious  and  irremediable  misery  — 
the  '  darkness '  of  banishment  from  God,  the  '  unquenchable 
fires '  of  memory,  the  '  undying  worm '  of  remorse  —  a  state  of 
mental  anguish  prefigured  by  physical  emblems." 

It  seems  impossible  to  weigh  carefully  the  foregoing  words 
of  scripture,  without  the  resulting  conviction  that  the  ruin  and 
overthrow  which  are  threatened  to  tlie  incorrigible,  will  be  swifl, 
terrible,  and  remediless. 

Degrees. 
Same  for  all.  Different  gradations. 

It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land 
of  .Sodom  and  (ioniorrah,  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  than  for  thatcity.  Matt.  x.l5. 

It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre 
and  Sidon  at  the  day  of  judgment,  than 
for  you.     Matt.  xi.  22. 

And  that  servant  which  knew  his 
lord's  will,  and  prepared  not  himself, 
neither  did  arci-rding  to  his  will,  shall 
be  beaten  with  many  stripes.  Hut  he 
that  knew  not,  and  did  commit  things 
worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  l>eaten  with 
few  sf'ripes.     Luke  xii.  47,  48 

Will)  will  renderto  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deeds.     Itoni.  ii   6 

That  every  one  may  receive  the  thinp^s 
do)ie  in  his  b'dy.  according  to  that  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad. 
2  Cor.  V.  10. 

And  death  and  hell  delivered  np  the 
dead  whicli  were  in  them:  and  they 
were  judged  every  man  according  to 
their  works.     Hev.  xx.  13. 

The  first  series  of  passages  sets  forth  the  general  fact  of 


And  when  they  came  that  %nere  hired 
about  the  eleventh  hour,  they  received 
every  man  a  penny.  But  when  the  first 
came,  they  supposed  that  they  should 
have  receivefl  more;  and  they  likewise 
received  every  man  a  penny.  And 
when  they  had  received  it,  they  mur- 
mured against  the  good  man  of  the 
house :  saying.  These  last  have  wrought 
but  one  hour,  and  thou  hast  made  them 
equal  unto  us,  wliich  have  borne  the 
burden  and  heat  of  the  day.  31att.  xx. 
9-12. 

Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on 
the  left  hand.  Depart  from  me,  ye 
cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared 
for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Matt. 
xxv.  41. 

And  whosoever  wa.s  not  found  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  life  was  caj<t  into  the 
lake  of  fire.    Key.  xx.  15. 


'  Theology  of  Christ,  p.  284. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  211 

future  awards,  without  going  into  details ;  the  second  specifies 
the  degrees  or  differences  of  retribution.  Some  have  supposed 
that  the  parable  in  Matt.  xx.  is  designed  to  teach  "  the  equality 
of  rewards,"'  and,  by  implication,  that  of  punishments.  Trench 
interprets  it  better,  as  intended  to  "  rebuke  the  spirit  of  self- 
exalting  comparison  of  ourselves  with  others,  and  to  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  saints'  reward  is  to  be  of  grace,  not  of  works." 
Alford  takes  a  similar  view. 

May  not,  however,  the  teaching  of  the  parable  be  simply 
this:  In  cases  where  the  opportunity  to  act  is  wanting,  God 
rewards  the  disposition  in  the  same  manner  as  he  would  have 
done  the  action  itself. 

The  absolute  equality  of  rewards  or  of  punishments  is  not 
implied  in  this  parable.  As  "VYhately  ^  observes  :  "  We  may  be 
sure  there  will  be  no  want  of  mansions,  or  of  suitable  variety 
of  mansions,  either  in  the  place  of  reward  or  of  pmiishment." 

Duration. 

Unending.  Will  terminate. 

Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word  i3 
will  throughly  purge  his  floor,  and  gone  out  of  my  mouth  i»  righteousness, 
gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner;  but  and  shall  not  return,  That  unto  me 
ho  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  un-  every  knee  shall  bow,  every  tongue 
quenchable  (ire.    Matt.  iii.  12.  shall' swear.    Isa.  xlv.  2-3. 

\Vho.<oeverspeaketh  against  the  Holy  And  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily 
Ghost,  it  sliall  not  be  forgiven  him,  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no  means 
neither  in  this  w(nld.  neither  in  the  come  out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  tlie 
loorld  to  come.     Matt.  xii.  32.  uttermost  farthing.     Matt.  v.  25,  2G. 

And  these  sliall  go  away  into  ever-  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
lasting  punishment:  but  the  righteous  should  bow,  .  . .  and  that  every  tongue 
into  life  eternal.    >Iatt.  xxv.  40.  should    confess    that    Jesus    Christ  is 

Hut  he  that  sliall  blaspheme  asrainst    Lord.     I'hil.  ii.  10,  11. 
the  llcily  <;host  hath  never  forgiveness, 
but  is  iii  danger  of  eternal  damnation. - 
Mark  iii.  29. 

lie  tliat  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall 
not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abidoth  on  him.    John  iii.  3<j. 

And  he  shall  be  tormented  with  lire 

>  Future  State,  p.  171. 

-  Gricsliach,  Lachmann,  Alford,  Trefrelles,  Tischendorf,  and  Me.ver  ap- 
parently, read  "eternal  sin."  This  readinir,  sustained  as  it  is  by  the  best 
critieal  authorities,  affords  a  very  stronir  incidental  proof  of  the  endless 
duration  of  future  jmnishment.  Eternal  sin  is  eternal  punishinont.  In 
this  view,  Mark  iii.  29  is  one  of  the  most  fearfnlly  signifieant  passages  in 
the  New  Tcstatnent.  "Eternal  sin  I"  Who  can  fathom  the  meaning  of 
these  words  ? 


212  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Unending.  Will  terminate. 

and  brimstone  in  the  presence  of  the 
holy  angels,  and  in  the  presence  of  the 
Lamb.  And  the  smoke  of  their  tor- 
ment ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever: 
and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night. 
Kev.  xiv.  10,  11. 

And  the  devil  that  deceived  them 
was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brim- 
stone, where  tlie  beast  and  the  false 
))rophet  are,  and  shall  be  tormented 
day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever.  Kev. 
XX.  10. 

That  the  texts  at  the  left  fairly  imply  the  endless  duration 
of  future  punishment,  we  have  no  doubt.  The  question  is : 
Do  those  at  the  right  militate  against  the  doctrine?  Such  ex- 
pressions as  "unquenchable^  fire,"  "not  forgiven,  neither  in  this 
world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come,"  "everlasting  punisliment,"^ 

1  The  Greek  term  &<r^e(nos  is  defined  by  Liddell  and  Scott  thus:  "Un- 
quenched,  inextini^uishable,  endless,  ceaseless."  Upon  this  point  anni- 
hilationist  writers  assert  that  the  fire  will  be  "unquenchable"  until  it 
has  consumed  the  chaff,  and  will  then  (jo  out,  of  itself!  We  refrain 
from  comment.  The  argument  derived  by  annihilationists  from  Matt, 
iii.  12,  is  peculiarly  suicidal.  From  the  fact  that  the  wicked  are  symbol- 
ized by  "chaff,"  it  is  inferred  that  they  will  he  Uteralli/  biirned  to  ashes,  as 
chaff  is.  An  equally  valid  inference  from  the  fact  that  the  righteous  are 
represented  by  "  wheat,"  would  be  that  they  are  stored  up  in  the  garner, 
to  be  disposed  of  exactly  as  wheat  is  ! 

•  In  Matt.  XXV.  46,  the  same  Greek  adjective,  aldvios,  is  applied  both 
to  "punishment"  and  to  "life."  Ilence  it  seems  a  reasonable  inference 
tliat  the  "  punishment,"  and  the  life  are  of  parallel  duration.  As  to  the 
words  aldiv  and  aluivios,  which,  in  their  various  modifications  and  combina- 
tions, are,  in  our  version,  rendered  "eternal,"  "everlasting,"  "forever," 
"  forever  and  ever,"  a  very  interesting  discussion  may  be  found  in  Pro- 
fessor Stuart's  Essay  on  Future  Punishment,  pp.  uG,  G6  (new  edition). 
He,  following  Knapp's  Greek  text,  linds  alwv  uinety-four  times  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  fifty-five  of  these  instances,  he  says  the  word  "  cer- 
tainly means  an  urtlimited  period  of  duration  either  future  or  past,  ever, 
always."  If  we  include  those  cases  in  which  the  term  refers  to  future 
punishment,  and  to  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah,  we  have,  says  Stuart, 
sixty-four  cases  out  of  ninety-four  in  \vhich  the  word  means  "unlimited 
period,  boundless  duration."  The  same  author  finds  alwvios  sixty-six 
times.  Of  these,  fifty-one  are  used  in  relation  to  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous;  two,  in  relation  to  God  or  his  glory;  six  are  of  a  miscella- 
neous nature,  but  the  meaning  in  them  all  is  quite  clear;  and  seven  relate 
to  the  subject  of  i'uture  punishment."     [It  should  be  added  that  Briider's 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  213 

"  ill  danger  of  eternal  sin,"  the  "wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him," 
"  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever," 
strongly  imply  unending  misery.  Such  is  their  fair,  legitimate 
meaning.  It  may  be  added,  as  the  subjoined  note  evinces,  that, 
if  these  expressions  do  not  legitimately  convey  this  idea,  then 
it  would  seem  impossible  to  prove  from  the  scriptures  the  eter- 
nity of  anything ;  impossible,  also,  to  express  in  the  Greek 
language  the  notion  itself  of  endless  duration. 

The  quotations  from  Isaiah  and  Philippians  simply  assert 
that  all  men  shall,  sooner  or  later,  acknowledge  the  sovereignty 
of  God.  But  while  some  do  this  in  love,  others  may  do  it  in 
wrath  and  terror.  The  subjugation  of  rebels  neither  invariably 
removes  their  inward  hostility,  nor  transforms  them  into  loyal 
subjects. 

The  text  from  Matt.  v.  is  a  caution  against  litigation,  an 
exhortation  to  settle  difficulties  j^revious  to  legal  process,  when- 
ever practicable.  There  is  probably  in  this  place  no  direct 
reference  to  future  punishment. 

Salvation,  —  Extent. 

All  Israel  saved.  .         Only  a  j^ortion  saved. 

And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved :  as  it  But  the  children  of  the  kinfrdom  shall 
is  written,  Tliere  sliall  come  out  of  Sion  be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness:  there 
the  Deliverer,  and  shall  turn  awa)'  un-  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth, 
godliness  from  Jacob.     Kom.  xi.  26.  Matt.  viii.  12. 

Alford,  De  AYette,  Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  others  take  the  first 
text  as  implying  a  "  futui-e  national  restoration  of  Israel  to 
God's  favor."  Or  it  may  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  spiritual 
Israel ;  for  "  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly." '     All  of  the 

Concordance,  latest  edition,  gives  ai(l)u  one  hundred  and  six  times,  and 
cd<jivioi  seventy-one  times.  Probablj',  hovfever,  tlie  proportion  remains 
the  same).  In  view  of  these  facts,  we  may  conclude  with  Professor 
Stuart,  tliat,  if  these  expressions  do  not  fairly  imply  the  eternity  of  future 
punislimciit,  "  then  the  scriptures  do  not  decide  that  God  is  eternal,  nor 
that  the  happiness  of  the  rij^hteous  is  witliout  end,  nor  that  his  covenant 
offrraccwnll  always  remain,  a  conclusion  which  would  forever  blast  the 
hopes  of  Christians,  and  shroud  in  more  than  midniy;ht  darkness  all  the 
friorics  of  the  gospel." 
'  Rom.  ii.  29. 


214  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

true  Israel  will  be   saved,  while  many  of   the  nominal  will 

perish. 

All  men  saved.  Some  not  saved. 

Until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all        The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell, 

things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the    and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God. 

moutli  of  all  his  holy  prophets.    Acts    I's.  ix  17. 

iii.  21.  Salvation  is  far  from  the  wicked.  Ts. 

For  God  hath  conclnded  them  all  in    cxi.x.  1.56 
unbelief,   that  he    might    have  mercy       The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his 
upon  all.     liom  xi.  32.  wickedness.    I'rov.  xiv.  32. 

For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in        TIttre  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.    ICor.    the  wicked     Isa  Ivii.  21. 
XV.  22.  All   the  proud,  yea.  and  all  that  do 

God  our  Saviour.  AVho  will  have  all  wickedly,  shall  he  stubble :  and  the  day 
men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  that  coiiioth  shall  burn  them  up,  saith 
knowledge  of  the  truth.    ITim.  ii3,  4.    the  Lor.u  of  hosts.     JIal.  iv.  1. 

The  living  God,  wlio  is  the  Saviour  Tlu>  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his 
of  all  men,  specially  of  those  that  be-  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
lieve.    ITim.iv.  10.  kingdom  all  things   that    offend,   and 

P'or  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  them,  which  do  iniquity.  And  shall 
salvaticju  liath  appeared  to  all  men.  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  lire.  Matt. 
Titus  ii.  11.  xiii.  41,  42. 

Not  willing  that  any  should  perish,        And   as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance,    eternal  life,  believed.     .Acts  xiii.  48. 
2  I'et.  iii.  9.  But  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and 

the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idol- 
aters, and  all  liars,  shall  have  th(>ir 
part  in  the  lake  whicli  burnetii  with 
fire  and  brimstone  :  which  is  the  second 
death.    Kev.  xxi.  8. 

Let  US  examine  the  texts  at  the  left,  and  ascertain  whether 
they  teach  the  actual  salvation  of  all  mankind.  Ilackett, 
with  Meyer  and  De  Wette,  interpret  the  first  quotation  of  the 
restoration  of  all  things  to  a  "  state  of  primeval  order,  purity, 
and  liappinoss,  .such  as  will  exist  for  those  who  have  part  in 
the  kingdom  of  Clirist  at  his  second  coming." 

Murdock's  version  of  the  Syriac  gives  the  passage  a  different 
turn,  thus :  "  Until  the  comjiletion  of  the  times  of  those  things 
wliich  (jod  liath  spoken."  Tlio  Arabic  lias,  "  Until  the  times 
which  establish  the  perfection  or  completion  of  all  the  predic- 
tions of  the  prophets." 

Adam  Clarke,  Barnes,  Dr.  .Jonathan  Edwards,'  and  others 
concur  in  this  latter  explanation.  Obviously,  neither  this  nor 
the  former  one  implies  the  salvation  of  all  men. 

On  Kom.  xi.  i32  Alford  says  that  it  brings  to  view  God's 
act,  and  not  man's.     The  ultimate  difference  between  the  "  all 

•  Works,  i.  284. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  215 

men "  shut  up  under  disobedience  and  the  "  all  men "  upon 
whom  mercy  is  shown,  lies  in  the  fact  that  by  some  men  this 
mercy  is  not  accepted,  and  so  they  become  self-excluded  from 
the  salvation  of  God. 

The  text  from  1  Cor.  refers  simply  to  physical  death  and 
resurrection.  "  As  Adam  caused  the  physical  death  of  all 
men,  so  Christ  will  effect  the  resurrection  of  all."  This  is  the 
view  of  Alford,  Barnes,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others. 

The  citations  from  1  Tim.  ii.  and  2  Peter  assert  the  "■  wish  "  or 
"  will "  of  God  that  all  men  should  be  saved.  But  this  by  no 
means  proves  that  all  will  be  saved.  For  some  things  which 
would  be  pleasing  to  God,  agreeable  to  his  will,  do  not  take 
place.  For  example,  he  ''  now  commandeth  all  men  every- 
where to  repent."  ^  Need  it  be  said  that  universal  obedience 
to  this  command,  though  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the  divine 
will,  does  not  exist?  Hence,  the  texts  in  question,  while 
setting  forth  the  benevolent  "  wish  "  or  "  will "  of  God,  do  not 
intimate  that  all  men  will  comply  with  that  "will." 

1  Tim.  iv.  10  terms  God  "  the  Saviour  of  all  men."  He  is 
such,  in  that  he  preserves  their  lives,  and  grants  them  the  day 
and  means  of  grace. 

Titus  ii.  1 1  asserts,  indeed,  that  the  grace  of  God  bringeth, 
proffereth,  salvation  to  all  men,  but  does  not  imply  that  this 
'•  salvation  "  la  forced  upon  them. 

It  is  clear  tliat  none  of  the  foregoing  texts,  fairly  interpreted, 
support  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation. 

Earth,  —  J>estruction. 

Im?estructible.  Will  be  rlestrnyed. 

The  earth  which  he  hath  established        Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation 

forever.    I's.  Ixxviii.  fit).  of  theearih:  and  the  heavens  are  the 

ir/(oh»id  the  foundations  of  theenrth,     work  of  Iliy  liands.     They  shall  jieri.'^h, 

that  it  should  not  be  removed  for  ever,    but  thcai  slialt  endure :  yea,  all  of  tlwin 

I's.  civ.  5.  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment      I's.  cii. 

The  earth  abideth  for  ever.  Eccl.  i.  4.    25.  2i!. 

Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away: 
but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away. 
Luke  xxi.  33. 

'  Acts  xvii.  30. 


216  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Indestructible.  Will  be  destroyed. 

The  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are 
therein  shall  be  burned  up.  2  Pet.  iii.  10. 

The  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away; 
and  there  was  found  uo  place  for  thera. 
Kev.  XX.  11. 

As  to  the  first  texts,  the  Hebrew  word  "  olam "  rendered 
"  forever,"  does  not  imply  the  metaphysical  idea  of  absolute 
endlessness,  but  a  period  of  indefinite  length,  as  Rambach  says, 
"  a  very  long  time,  the  end  of  which  is  hidden  from  us."  These 
texts  do  not  necessarily  teach  the  absolute  perpetuity  of  the 
earth. 

Of  the  opposed  texts,  that  from  Ps.  cii.  is  a  kind  of  com- 
parison between  the  eternity  of  God  and  the  dependent  existence 
of  material  objects  :  '"  Though  they  should  perish,  thou  shalt 
stand."  Similarly  Luke :  "  Though  heaven  and  earth  should 
pass  away,  my  words  shall  not  pass  away."  That  is,  my  words 
are  more  enduring  than  even  heaven  and  earth. 

The  quotations  from  Peter  and  Revelation  imply  that  the 
present  constitution  of  things  will  be  changed ;  that  "  the 
cloud-capped  towers,  the  gorgeous  palaces,  the  solemn  temples, 
and  the  great  globe  itself"  wUl  be  subjected  to  the  action  of 
fire.  This  opinion  prevailed  among  the  ancient  philosophers, 
especially  the  Greek  stoics.^ 

The  passages  which  speak  of  the  destruction  of  the  earth 
may  therefore  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  change  or  passing 
away  of  its  preseiit  form  ;  those  which  speak  of  its  durability, 
as  implying  the  permanence  of  its  constituent  elements. 

Heaven,  —  Occupants. 

Chriat  only.  Elijah  also. 

And  no  man   hath   a.scended  up  to        Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into 
heaven,  but  ho  that  camo  down  trom    heaven.    2  Kings  ii.' 11. 
heaven,  ere7i  the  JSon  of  man  which  is 
in  heaven.    John  iii.  13 

In  the  first  text  Jesus,  setting  forth  his  own  superior  authority, 
says,  substantially,  "  No  Iniman  being  can  speak  from  personal 
knowledge,  as  I  do,  who  came  down  from  heaven."     "  No  man 

•  See  Wetstein,  on  2  Pet.  iii.  7. 


DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  217 

hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  to  bring  hack  tidings."  So  we, 
speakhig  of  the  secrets  of  the  future  world,  should  very  natu- 
rally say :  "•  No  mau  has  been  there  to  tell  us  about  them." 
In  saying  this,  we  do  not  deny  that  any  one  has  actually 
entered  the  eternal  world,  but  merely  that  any  one  has  gone 
thither,  and  returned  to  unfold  its  mysteries. 

Alford  applies,  however,  the  words  "  hath  ascended "  to 
Christ's  "  exaltation  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour." 

The  former  explanation  seems  the  most  natural. 

Flesh  and  blood  excluded.  Enoch  there. 

Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the        Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should 
kingdom  of  God;  neither  doth  corrup-    not  see  death.    Heb.  xi.  5. 
tion  inherit  incorruption.  1  Cor.  xv.  50. 

A  late  sceptical  writer  adduces  this  and  the  preceding  as 
cases  of  discrepancy.  It  need  only  be  said  that,  beyond  question, 
Enoch  and  Elijah,  before  entering  the  heavenly  world,  passed 
through  a  change  equivalent  to  death.  Their  corruptible  put 
on  incorruption,  and  their  mortal  put  on  immortality. 

Publicans  and  harlots  enter.  Impure  7iot  there. 

Tlie  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  Neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor 
the  kingdom  of  God  before  you.  Matt,  adulterers,  nor  pffeminate.  nor  abusers 
x^-  <^1-  of    themselves     with     mankind,     nor 

thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards, 
nor  revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  in- 
herit the  kingdom  of  God.  1  Cor.  vi. 
S,  10. 

The  first  text  does  not  say  that  {publicans  and  harlots  as  such, 
but  merely  that  some  who  had  been  such,  and  had  afterwards 
repented,  should  enter  heaven.  Paul,  in  the  verse  succeedinsr 
the  quotation  from  Corinthians,  observes:  "And  such  were 
some  of  you,  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye 
are  justified."  They  had  been  corrupt  and  wicked,  but  were  so 
no  longer.  Observe,  also,  that  our  Saviour's  assertion  amounts 
simply  to  this,  "  The  publicans  and  harlots  are  more  likely  to 
be  saved,  stand  a  better  chance  for  salvation,  than  do  you,  chief 
priests  and  elders." 

Neither  this  passage,  nor   any  other,  sanctions  the  idea  of 
impurity  tolerated  in  heaven. 
19 


218  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Employments. 

Incessant  praise.  Rest  and  quiet. 

And  they  rest  not  day  and  nipht,        There  remaineth  therefore  a  rest  to 
saying.  Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God  Al-    the  people  of  God.    Heb.  iv.  9. 
mighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to        Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the 
come.    Kev.  iv.  8.  Lord  from  henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the 

Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
labors.    Kev.  xiv.  13. 

The  two  cases  are  quite  different ;  the  former  is  that  of  the 
lour  wonderful  "  living  creatures,"  the  latter  that  of  departed 
l)elieYers.  Moreover,  the  "  rest "  attributed  to  departed  saints 
is  "  rest  from  their  labors"  —  from  every  tiling  painful  and 
wearisome,  —  but  not  a  "  rest "  of  dormant  inactivity,  precluding 
enjoyment,  praise,  and  glorified  service. 


CHAPTER    II. 

ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.! 
DUTY  OF  MJJf^.  — Toward  God. 

Blessing  gained. 

By  those  who  see.  Those  who  see  not. 

Blessed  arc  the  eyes  which  see  the        Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  me, 

things  that  ye  see.    Luke  x.  23.  thou  hast  believed:    blesstd  are  they 

that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  be- 
lieved.   John  XX.  29. 

The  word  "  blessed,"  in  the  first  case  seems  to  mean  "  higlily 
favored,"  "  enjoying  peculiar  privileges  ;  "  in  the  latter,  "  worthy 
of  commendation." 

Andrew  Fuller :  "  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  re- 
quiring sight  as  the  ground  of  faith,  which  Thomas  did,  and 
obtaining  it  as  the  completion  of  faith,  which  those  who  saw 
the  coming  and  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  did.  The  one  was  a 
species  of  imbelief,  the  other  was  faith  terminating  in  vision." 

Blood,  —  disposal. 

Poured  upon  altar.  Sprinl'led  upon  it. 

The  blood  of  thy  sacrifices  shall  be  The  priests  shall  sprinkle  the  blood 
poured  out  upon  the  altar.  Deut.  xii.  niion  the  altar  round  about.  Lev. 
27.  iil.  2. 

Maimonides,  whose  knowledge  of  Hebrew  customs  and  tra- 
ditions was  unsurpassed,  says  that  a  part  of  the  blood  was 
sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  and  the  remainder  poured  out  at  the 
bottom  of  it. 

The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  render  the  Hebrew  word  in  Le- 

'  The  reader  nocd  not  be  reminded  that  no  rij^id  and  precise  i-Iassification 
has  been  attempted.  That  arranyremcnt  which  seemed  most  natural  and 
obvious  has  }j:i""crally  been  adopted.  The  mere  classification  of  discrep- 
ancies is  a  trivip.l  matter  in  comparison  with  their  solution. 

219 


220  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

viticus  "pour"  and  "pour  out."'  A  part  of  the  blood  was  dis- 
posed of  in  one  way  and  the  rest  in  another.  Smith's  Bib.  Diet, 
says  that  the  priest,  after  he  had  sprinkled  the  altar  of  incense 
with  the  blood,  "  poured  out  what  remained  at  the  foot  of  the 
altar  of  burnt-offering."  Outram  :  ^  "  The  blood  of  the  paschal 
lamb,  of  the  male  firstlings,  and  of  the  tithes,  was  considered  as 
rightly  sprinkled,  if  it  were  only  poured  out  at  either  corner  of 
the  altar." 

Covered,  with  dust.  Poured  out  as  water. 

He  shall  even    pour  out  the  blood  Thou  shalt  pour  it  upon  the  earth  as 

thereof,  and  cover  it  with  dust.    Lev.  water.    Deut.  xii.  24. 
xvii.  13. 

Strange  that  a  recent  author  who  deems  this  a  discrepancy, 
could  not  see  that  the  blood  might  be  "  poured  upon  the  earth," 
and  afterward  "  covered  with  dust." 

Christ's  execution. 

Lawful.  Unlawful. 

We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  he        It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
ought  to  die.    John  xix.  7.  to  death.    John  xviii.  31. 

The  first  text  refers  to  the  Mosaic  code,  the  second  to  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  the  Roman  government.  The  meaning 
of  the  coraljined  passages  is,  "  By  our  code  of  laws  he  ought  to 
(he,  Init  it  is  not  lawful  for  us  (not  permitted  us  by  the  Roman 
government)  to  put  any  man  to  death." 

Alford :  "  From  the  time  when  Archelaus  was  deposed  (a.d. 
6  or  7)  and  Judea  became  a  Roman  province,  it  would  follow 
by  the  Roman  law,  that  the  Jews  lost  the  power  of  life  and 
death."  From  Josephus,^  we  learn  that  it  was  not  permitted 
the  high-priest  even  to  assemble  a  sanhedrim  without  the  consent 
of  the  Roman  procurator. 

Covenant  basis. 

Religious  laws.  Civil  latos 

And  he  said.  Behold  I  moke  a  cove-  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all 

nant.  ...  Write  tliou  these  wnnls:  for  the  words  of  the  Loud,  and   all   the 

after  the  tenor  of  these  word-)  I   have  jndfrments.  .  .  .  The    covenant,   which 

made  a  covenant  with  thee,  and  with  the  J»ui)  hath  made  with  you  concern- 

Israel.    E.x.  x-vxiv.  10-27.  ing  all  these  words.    Ex.  xxiv.  8-8. 

•  Fucrst  Bays  the  word  means,  to  moisten,  to  wet. 

*  On  Sacrifices,  chap.  xvi.  '  Antiq.  xx.  9,  1. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  221 

The  discrepancy  v/hich  a  late  writer  finds  here,  has  no  ex- 
istence, except  in  his  imagination.  The  first  passage  clearly 
makes  the  decalogue  the  foundation  of  the  "  covenant."  ^  The 
"  words  "  and  "  judgments  "  of  the  second  passage  begin  with 
the  decalogue  in  the  twentieth  chapter,  so  that  both  passages 
concur  in  making  that  decalogue  the  '"  basis  "  of  the  "  covenant." 

Covering  of  sin. 

Approved.  DenouncpA. 

Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  is        He  that  covereth  his  sins  shall  not 
forgiven,    whose   sin  in  covered.     Ps.    prosper.    Prov.  xxviii.  13. 
xxxii.  1. 

In  the  first  text,  the  parallelism  shows  that  the  "  covering  of 
sin "  means  its  remission  or  atonement.  The  second,  as  the 
context  evinces,  refers  to  its  unjustifiable  concealment. 

The  fii'st  text  alludes  to  God's  gracious  act  in  forgiving  sin  ; 
the  second  to  man's  wicked  act  in  conniving  at  it,  and  hiding  it. 

Crimes  sjyecified.  ^' 

One  list.  A  different  list. 
Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  any  And  God  spake  all  these  words,  say- 
graven  or  molten  imajre,  an  aboniina-  ins,  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which 
tion  unto  the  Loud,  the  work  of  the  havf>  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
hands  of  the  craftsman,  and  putteth  it  Kirypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage, 
in  a  secret  place:  and  all  the  people  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
shall  answer  and  say,  Amen,  etc.  Deut.  me,  etc.  Ex.  xx.  1-xxiii.  £S.^ 
xxvii.  15-26. 

Keil,  on  Deut.  xxvii  26  :  "  From  this  last  curse,  which  applies 
to  every  breach  of  the  law,  it  evidently  follows,  that  the  different ' 
sins  and  transgressions  already  mentioned  were  only  selected 
by  way  of  example,  and  for  the  most  part  were  such  as  could 
be  easily  concealed  from  the  judicial  authorities." 

Similarly  Le  Clerc  and  ISIichaelis. 

David's  conduct. 

Strayed  from  God  Did  not  stray. 

I  have  gone  astray  like  a  lost  sheep.       Yet  I  erred  not  from  thy  precepts. 
Ps.  cxix.  176.  Ps.  cxix.  110. 

David  does  not  charge  himself  with  any  moral  obliquity,  but 
6ets  forth  his  desolate  and  perilous  condition.     The  Hebrew  of 

*  See  Ex.  xxxiv.  28,  last  clause. 

*  Passages  abridged  here,  and  in  several  cases. 

19* 


222  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

"  have  gone  astray  "  meaus,  according  to  Gesenius,  "  to  be  tlirust 
hither  and  thither."     Surely  tliis  was  David's  experience. 

Menasseh  ben  Israel  takes  the  first  text  as  alludmg  to  the 
"troubles  and  misfortunes  which  David  experienced  in  this 
■world, —  constantly  persecuted,  and  fleeing  from  one  place  to 
another  to  escape  from  Said  and  his  own  son." 

A  man  of  perfect  heart.  Committed  sin. 

His  heart  was  not  perfect  with  tlie  David's  heart  smote  him  after  that  lio 
Lord  liis  God,  as  the  heart  of  David  had  numbered  the  peoplo.  And  David 
his  father  Because  David  did  that  said  unto  the  Loud,  I  have  sinned 
M-/(;c/(tfa.s  right  in  tlie  eves  of  the  LoitD.  greatly  in  that  1  have  done.  2  t>am. 
and  turned  not  aside  "fron*  any  thing    xxiv.  10. 

that  he  commanded  liira  all  the  days  of       Thou  hant  been  a  man  of  war,  and 
his  life,  save   only  in    the    matter  of    hast  shed  blood.    1  Chron.  xxviu.  3. 
Lriah  the  llittite.    1  Kings  xv.  3.  5. 

I  have  found  David  the  son  of  Jesse, 
a  man  alter  mine  own  heart,  which 
shall  fullil  all  my  will.    Acts  xiii.  22. 

The  quotation  from  Acts  refers  to  David  earhj  in  Ufe^ 
before  he  had  fallen  mto  those  great  sins  which  cast  such  a 
shadow  upon  his  administration. 

Again,  tbe  praise  bestowed  upon  David  contemplates  him  in 
relation  to  his  predecessor  and  successors  in  the  kingly  office. 
In  comparison  with  them,  his  heart  was  "  perfect  with  the  Lord 
his  God."  Ilackett :  ^  "  This  commendation  is  not  absolute,  but 
describes  the  character  of  David  in  comparison  with  that  of 
Saul."  Smith's  Bib.  Diet,  says,  the  commendation  has  been 
•  made  too  much  of.  "  It  merely  indicates  a  man  whom  God 
will  approve,  in  distinction  from  Saul,  who  was  rejected." 

Besides,  David's  repentance  was  as  deep  and  thorougli  as  his 
sins  were  flagrant  and  aggravated.  On  this  sul )ject  Mr.  Carlyle  ^ 
fitly  and  forcibly  remarks :  "  Who  is  called  '  the  man  after 
God's  own  heart '  ?  David,  the  Hebrew  king,  had  fallen  into 
sins  enough  —  blackest  crimes  —  there  was  no  want  of  sin. 
And,  therefore,  unbelievers  sneer,  and  ask,  '  Is  this  your  man 
according  to  God's  heart '  ?  The  sneer,  I  must  say,  seems  to  me 
but  a  shallow  one.  What  are  faults,  what  are  the  outwaid 
details  of  a  life,  if  the  inner  secret  of  it,  the  remorse,  temptations, 

»  See  1  Sam.  xiii.  14.  ''On  Acts  xiii.  22. 

*  Heroes  aud  Hero-worship,  p.  72. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  223 

the  of teu-baffled,  never-ended  struggle  of  it,  be  forgotten  ? 

David's  life  and  history,  as  written  for  us  in  those  Psalms  of 
his,  I  consider  to  be  the  truest  emblem  ever  given  us  of  a  man's 
moral  progress  and  warfare  here  below.  All  earnest  souls  will 
ever  discover  in  it  the  faitliful  struggle  of  an  earnest  human 
soul  towards  what  is  good  and  best.  Struggle  often  baffled  — 
sore  baffled  —  driven  as  into  entire  wreck ;  yet  a  struggle  never 
ended,  ever  with  tears,  repentance,  true  unconquerable  purpose, 
begun  anew." 

In  this  his  constant  attitude  as  a  moral  hero  "  striving  against 
sin,"  who  when  "  cast  down  is  not  destroyed,"  but  springs  up, 
Antaeus-liiie,  to  renew  the  conflict,  David  challenges  our 
admiration. 

Fast,  —  observance. 

Enjoined.  Disregarded. 

On  the  tenth  daif  of  this  seventh  And  at  that  time  Solomon  held  a 
month  /here  shall  be  a  day  of  atone-  feast,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  .  .  .  be- 
ment;  it  shall  be  a  holy  convocation  fore  the  Lord  our  God,  seven  days  and 
unto  you.  . . .  And  ye  shall  do  no  work  in  seven  days,  even  fourteen  days.  On  the 
that  same  day;  .  .  .  for  whatsoever  soul  eighth  day  he  sent  the  people  away.  1 
it  be  tUat  shall  not  be  afflicted  in  that    Kin^s  viii.  65,  66. 

same  day,   he    shall    be    cut  oft  from        And  on  the  three  and  twentieth  day 
among  his  people.    Lev.  xxiii.  27-29.        of  the  seventh  month  he  sent  the  peo- 
ple away  into  their  tents.     2  Chron. 
vii.  10. 

It  cannot  be  proved  that  Solomon  did  not  keep  the  day  of 
atonement  according  to  the  law  in  Leviticus.  The  feast  of 
tabernacles  began  on  the  fifteenth  and  ended  on  the  twenty- 
second  of  the  month ;  closing  with  a  "  holy  convocation  "  the 
''  eighth  day,"'  at  the  end  of  which  Solomon  dismissed  the  people; 
the  dismission  taking  effect  the  next  morning,  the  twenty-third. 
In  this  manner  the  accounts  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  harmonize 
perfectly. 

We  may  suppose  that  the  first  series  of  seven  days  was  not 
entirely  consecutive,  but  began  with  the  seventh,  and  included 
three  days  before  and  four  days  after  the  tenth,  or  "  day  of 
atonement,"  which  was  fitly  observed.  Or  it  may  be  that  this 
series  began  with  the  eighth  day  of  the  mouth,  while  the  "  day 

>  Lev.  xxiii.  33-39. 


224  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

of  atonement,"  being  itself  a  religiovis  solemnity  of  high  im- 
portance, and  from  the  brevity  of  the  narrative,  is  reckoned  in 
as  one  of  the  days  of  festivity,  although  it  was  kept  according 
to  the  law. 

The  latter  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  eminent  Jewish  critics.* 
Bahr :  "  Old  commentators  say  that  the  dedication  rendered 
it  unusually  solemn ;  others,  that,  as  it  was  a  fast-day,  its  ob- 
servance was  for  the  time  omitted." 

First-bom  sons. 

Dedicated.  Redeemed. 

The  first-born  of  thy  sons  shall  thou        All  the  first-bom  of  man  amon^  thy 
give  unto  mc.    Ex.  xkii.  29.  children  shalt  thou  redeem.  Ex.  xiii.  13. 

Keil :  "  The  adoption  of  the  iirst-born  on  the  part  of  Jehovah 
was  a  perpetual  guarantee  to  the  whole  nation  of  the  right  of 
covenant  fellowship."  The  first-born  sons,  though  specially 
consecrated  to  God,  were  allowed  to  be  redeemed,  and  Levites 
substituted  in  their  stead.^ 

Firstling  animals. 

Redeemable.  Not  redeemable. 

Then  shalt  thou  turn  it  into  money,        The  firstling  of  a  cow,  or  the  firstling 
etc.     Deut.  xiv.  22-26.  of  a  sheep,  or  the  firstling  of  a  goat, 

thou  slialt  not  redeem.  Num.  xviii.  17. 

The  first  passage  does  not,  as  some  pretend,  sanction  the 
redemption  of  firstlings.  It  merely  allows  them,  for  con- 
venience' sake,  to  be  "  turned  into  money " ;  but  the  money 
must  be  taken  to  the  prescribed  place,  and  there  expended  for 
articles  of  food  and  drink  to  be  consumed  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  original  firstlings  would  have  been.  It  was  simply  an 
arrangement  for  the  accommodation  of  the  offerer. 

Redeemed  with  money.  With  an  animal,  or  slain. 

The  firstling  of  unc'ean  beasts  shalt  The  firstling  of  an  asu  thou  shalt  re- 

tliou   redi'em.   ...  Accrding  to  thine  deem  with  a  lamb;  and  if  thou  redeem 

eHtimution.  for  the  money  of  five  she-  //im  not,  then  shalt  thou  break  his  neck, 

kels.    Num.  .wiii.  15,  16.  Ex.  xxxiv.  20. 

Keil  thinks  that  "  the  earlier  law,  wliich  commanded  that  an 
ass  should  be  redeemed  with  a  sheep,  or  else  be  put  to  death, 
was  modified  in  favor  of  the  revenues  of  the  sanctuary  and  its 

»  Conciliator,  i.  235.  ="  Num.  iu.  12, 13. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  225 

servants."     Money  would  be  more  serviceable  than  numerous 

animals,  by  way  of  commutation. 

Sanctified.  Not  sanctified. 

All  the  firstlinjr  malos  that  come  of  The  firstliiifr    of  the   beasts,  which 

thy  herd  and  of  thy  tlock  thou  slialt  should  bo  the  Lord's  firstling,  no  man 

sanctify  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.  Deut.  shall  sanctify  it.    Lev.  xxvii.  26. 
XV.  19. 

Keil :  "  What  belonged  to  the  Lord  by  law  could  not  be 
dedicated  to  him  by  a  vow."  It  would  be  mockery  to  give 
him  what  was  already  his. 

Idolatry. 

God  only,  icorshipped.  Other  beiyigs  adored. 

Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  God.  before  whom  my  fathers  Abra- 
me. . .  .Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  ham  and  Isaac  did  walk.' the  God  which 
to  them,  nor  serve  them.  Ex.  xx.  3,  5.      fed  me  all  my  lift*  lonjr  unto  this  day. 

The  Angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all 
evil,  bless  the  lads.  Gen.  xlviii.  15, 16. 
Behold,  there  stood  a  man  over 
against  him  with  his  sword  drawn  iu 
his  hand.  .  .  .  And  Joshua  fell  on  his 
face  to  the  earth,  and  did  worship. 
Josh.  V.  13,  14. 

"  God  before  whom  my  fathers  walked,"  "  God  who  fed  me 
all  my  life,"  and  the  "  Angel  who  redeemed  me  "  are  three 
appellations  of  one  and  the  same  Being.  Lange  :  "  A  three- 
fold naming  of  God."  Murphy :  ''  Jacob's  threefold  periphrasis 
is  intended  to  describe  the  one  God  who  wills,  works,  and 
wards." 

On  Josh.  V.  14  Keil  says  the  Hebrew  word  employed  here 

"  does   not  always  mean  divine  worship,  but  very  frequently 

means  nothing  more  than  the  deep  Oriental  reverence  paid  by 

a  dependant  to  his  superior  or  king."  ^     Gesenius :  "  This  honor 

was  paid  not  only  to   superiors,  as  to  kings  and  princes,  but 

also  to  equals."  ^     There  is,  then,  no  idolatry  in  either  case. 

Capitally  pnninhed.  Punishment  undesired. 

If  there  be  found  among  yon,  . .  .  man        For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
or  woman  that  hath  wrought  wicked-    of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  GoD 
nf.<s  in  tlie  sight  of  the  Lop.d  thy  God,    Ezek  xviii.  32. 
in    transgressing    his    covenant      And 
hath  gone  and  served  other  guds,  and 
worshi^jped  them.  .  .  .  The  hands  of  the 
witnesses  shall  be  first  upon  him  to  put 
him  to  death,  and  afterward  the  hands 
of  all  the  people.    L)eut.  x\  ii.  2,  3,  7.* 

*  2  Sam.  ix.  6;  xiv.3.3.        ■  Gen.  xxiii.  7;  Ex.  xviii.  7;  1  Kings  ii.  19 
"  See  Deut.  xiii.  6-11. 


226  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

The  capital  punishment  of  idohxters  was  not  a  thing  desirable 
per  scs  but  it  was  enjoined  out  of  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the 
people  and  the  security  of  the  government.  Under  the  the- 
ocracy, in  which  God  was  the  sole  Lawgiver  and  King,  idolatry 
was  simjjly  high  treason,  and  must  be  severely  punished,  or  the 
very  existence  of  the  government  would  be  endangered. 

INIichaelis ' :  "  As  the  only  true  God  was  the  civil  legislator 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  accepted  by  them  as  their  King, 
idolatry  was  a  crime  against  the  state,  and  therefore  just  as 
deservedly  punished  with  death  as  high  treason  is  with  us. 
"Whoever  worshipped  strange  gods  shook,  at  the  same  time,  the 
whole  fabric  of  the  laws,  and  rebelled  against  him  in  whose 
name  the  government  was  carried  on." 

Dr.  Jahn  ^ :  "  Whoever  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  over  which 
Jehovah  was  King,  worshipped  another  god,  or  pi-actised  any 
superstitions,  by  this  very  act  renounced  his  allegiance  to  his  king, 
and  deserted  to  another.  He  committed  high  treason,  and  was 
properly  considered  a  public  criminal.  Whoever  incited  others 
to  idolatry  mcited  them  to  rebellion,  and  was  a  mover  of  sedi- 
tion. Therefore  death  was  justly  awarded  as  Uie  punishment 
of  idolatry  and  its  kindred  arts,  magic,  necromancy,  and  sooth- 
saying ;  and  also  of  inciting  to  idolatry." 

Image  making. 

Sanctioned.  Forbidden. 

And  thou  shalt  make  two  cliorubim  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any 

q/" gold,  o/boaton  work  shalt  tliou  make  graven  iniaije,  or  any  likeness  of  any 

them,  in   tlie  two  ends  of  tlie  mercy-  tliinr/.  .  .  .  TJiou   shalt   not  bow   down 

seat. . . .  And  thectierubim  shall  stretch  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them.    Ex. 

forth  llieir  wings  on  hifrli,  covering  the  xx.  4,  5. 

mercy-s(>at  with  their  wings   ...  And  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  lest  ye 

in  the  candlestick  slia/l  bu  four  howls  forget  the  covenant  of  the  Loud  your 

made   like   unto    almi>nds,    trith  their  Ciod,   whicl;   he   made  with   you,   and 

knops  and    their    tiowers.      Ex,  xxv.  make  you  a  graven  image,  or  the  like- 

18,  20,  34.  nes<  of  any  thinii  which  the  Loijd  thy 

And  the  Lord  said  unto  Mo.ses,  Make  God  hath  forbidden  thee.     Ueut  iv.23. 

thee  a  (iery  serjH'nt,  and  .set  it  upon  a  Cursed  te  the  man  tliat  maketh  nvij 

pole.     Num.  xxi.  8.  graven  or  in<ilten  image,  an  abomina- 

The   throne   had   six   steps.  ...And  tion   unto  the   I.oiu),  the  work  of  the 

twelve   lions   stood   there   on   the  one  hai-.ds  of  thi'  craftsman,  and  putteth  it 

side   and   on    the   other   u))on    the   six"  in  a  secret  y^/ctce.     Deut.  xxvii.  15. 
Bteps:  there  was  not  the  like  made  in 
any  kingdom.    1  King.^  x.  lU,  20. 

'  Coinirentary  on  Laws  of  Mo.ses,  iv.  11. 

'■'  History  of  Hebrew  C-ommoiiwettlth,  p.  19  (English  edition). 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  227 

Some  interpret  the  prohibitions  as  referring  to  images  in- 
tended to  represent  the  Divine  Being. 

Blichaelis  ^ :  It  is  evident  that  images  of  the  Deity  are  alone 
spoken  of  in  all  these  passages,  and  that,  if  we  infer  the  pro- 
hibition of  painting  and  sculpture  from  these  texts,  we  might 
with  equal  reason  from  the  words  that  follow,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
lift  up  thine  eyes  to  heaven,  to  behold  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,"  infer  that  we  are  never  to  raise  our  eyes  to  heaven, 
and  contemplate  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  but  rather  to  wtdk 
upon  all  fours  forever. 

Josephus^  and  Menasseh  ben  Israel^  apply  the  prohibition  to 
images  made  for  purposes  of  idolatry.  The  latter,  with  rabbi 
Isaac  Arama,  also  restricts  it  to  the  likeness  of  existing,  and 
not  of  imaginary  things. 

Further,  the  cherubim  were  not  "  graven  images,"  but  were 
of  "  beaten  work,"  as  Murphy  says,  "  formed  by  the  hammer, 
of  malleable  gold."  Nor  were  they  made  "  in  the  likeness  "  of 
any  created  thing  whatever.     Then*  form  was  purely  ideal. 

Hengstenberg:*  The  cherubim  is  a  representative  of  creation 
in  its  highest  grade,  an  ideal  creature.  The  vital  powers  com- 
municated to  the  most  elevated  existences  in  the  visible  creation 
are  collected  and  mdividuahzed  in  it. 

In  this  view  Josephus,  Bochart,  Stuart,*  and  Fairbann® 
substantially  agree.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  neither  the  making 
of  the  cherubim  nor  the  other  cases  of  sculpture  or  image- 
making  was  a  violation  of  the  second  commandment.  The 
idolatrous  purpose  at  which  the  prohibition  is  aimed  was 
wanting  in  all  of  the  foregoing  instances. 

Israelis  transgression. 

Ineradicable.  To  be  removed. 

For  though  thou  wash  thee  with  nitre,        O  Jerusalem,  wash  tliine  heart  from 

and  take  thee  much  soap,  yet  tliine  in-    wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved. 

iquity  is  marked  before  me.    Jer.  ii. '22.    How    lonfr   sliall    thy   vain    thoughts 

lodge  witliin  thee?    Jer.  iv.  14. 

'  Com.  on  Law.s  of  Moses,  iv.  52.        -  Aiitiq.  iii.  v.  5. 

'  Conciliator,  i.  154-157.  *  I'^Sypt  anil  Books  of  Moses.  1G8. 

»  On  Key.  iv.  6-8.  •  Typology,  i.  261, 262  (4th  cdiiiou). 


228  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Abarbanel :  "  Although  you  wash  and  cleanse  yourself  out- 
wardly, your  iniquity  is  marked."  That  is,  by  no  external 
rites  and  ceremonies  can  you  be  cleansed ;  your  hearts  must  be 
purified  by  penitence. 

Jerusalem^  —  ethical  aspect. 

A  delight  to  God.  A  provocation. 

The  Lord  loveth  the  gates  of  Zion  For  this  city  has  been  to  me  as  a 

more  than  all  the  dwellings  of  Jacob,  provocation  of  mine  anger  and  of  my 

(jlorious  things  are  spoken  of  thee,  O  fury  from  the  day  that  they  built  it, 

city  of  God.     Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2,  3.  even  unto  this  day;   that  1  should  re- 

For  the  Lord  hath  chosen  Zion ;  he  move  it  from    before  my  face.     Jer. 

hath  desired  it  for  his  habitation.    Ps.  xxxii.  31. 
cxxxii.  13. 

In  the  first  passages  there  is,  as  Tholuck  says,  "  no  reference 
to  Jerusalem  according  to  her  earthly  aspects,  with  her  streets 
and  walls  and  palaces."  It  is  the  church,  which  is  figuratively 
styled  "  Zion  "  and  "  city  of  God." 

Calvin ;  "  Christ  has  by  his  advent  extended  Mount  Zion  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth."   Jeremiah  refers  to  the  literal  Jerusalem. 

Judging  of  David, 

Desired.  Deprecated. 

Judge  me,  O  Lord,  according  to  my  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy 
righteousness,  and  according  to  mine  servant:  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man 
integrity  that  is  in  me.    Ps.  vii.  8.  living  be  justified.    Ps.  cxliii.  2. 

The  first  text  has  reference  to  one  particular  case,  the  con- 
troversy between  David  and"Cush'  the  Benjamite."  David 
knew  himself  to  be  guiltless  of  the  crimes  alleged  against  him 
by  this  enemy ;  hence  his  appeal :  "  As  to  this  charge,  God 
knows  that  I  am  innocent."  But,  on  a  retrospect  of  his  whole 
life,  he  acknowledges  his  ill-desert  in  general,  and  exclaims : 
''  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant."  A  man  may  be 
absolutely  innocent,  even  in  God's  sight,  with  reference  to  a 
certain  accusation,  yet  not  sinless  in  respect  to  his  whole  life. 

Jnst  man^s  life. 

By  fidth.  By  deeds. 

The  just  shall  live  by  his  faith,  llab.  If  a  man  Ix!  just,  and  do  that  which  is 
ii.  4.  lawful  and  right, ...  he  shall  surely  live, 

saith  the  Lord  God.    Ezek  xviii.  5,  9. 

'  The  Jewish  expositors  iindcnstood  Saul  to  bo  incaiit ;  others  say  Shiirici. 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  229 

The  faith  is  such  as  produces  good  works;  the  deeds  are 
such  as  spring  from  living  faith.  One  text  speaks  of  the 
subject  in  one  relation ;  the  other,  in  a  different,  yet  not  incom- 
patible one. 

Monarchy. 
Sanctioned  by  God.  Offensive  to  Him. 

When  thou  art  come  unto  the  land  Make  us  a  king  to  judge  us  like  all 
which  the  Lokd  thy  God  giveth  thee,  the  nations.  . . .  And  the  Lord  said  un- 
and  Shalt  possess  it,  and  shalt  dwell  1o  Samuel,  Hearken  unto  the  voice  of 
therein,  and  shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  king  the  people  in  all  that  they  say  unto 
over  me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that  are  thee:  for  they  have  not  rejected  thee, 
about  me;  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  but  they  have  rejected  me,  that  1  should 
liim  king  over  thee,  whom  the  Lord  not  reign  over  them.  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  7. 
thy  God  shall  choose.  Deut.  xvii.  14, 15.        In  it  not  wheat-harvest  to  day  ?    I 

will  call  unto  the  Loud,  and  he  shall 
send  thunder  and  rain;  that  ye  may 
perceive  and  see  that  your  wickedness 
ts  great,  which  ye  have  done  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord,  in  asking  you  a  king. 
1  Sam-  xii.  17. 

The  rationalistic  objection  is,  that  the  monarchy  was  con- 
templated and  provided  for  in  the  law,  yet  was  afterwards 
declared  to  be  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God.  To  this  objection 
Jewish  interpreters  ^  reply  as  follows.  It  is  said,  in  Tosaphoth, 
that  the  sin  lay  "  not  in  demanding  a  king,  but  in  the  mode  of 
so  doing,  '  like  all  the  nations,' "  virtually  equivalent  to  a  wish 
to  become  like  surrounding  idolaters.  Maimonides  and  Nach- 
manides :  In  making  their  demand  in  the  shape  of  a  com- 
plaint, as  if  they  were  tired  of  Samuel's  administration,  and 
wished  to  be  rid  of  him.  The  Cabalists:  In  actmg  prema- 
turely, or  asking  impatiently  and  at  an  improper  time. 

Abarbancl  :  "  The  divine  will  was  not  that  they  should  elect 
a  king,  for  God  was  the  true  King  of  Israel."  That  is,  Deut. 
xvii.  was  not  a  command,  nor  even  a  permission,  to  choose  a 
king,  but  a  mere  prophetic  statement  of  what  God  foresaw 
they  would  do.  It  is  not  said,  "  When  you  enter  the  land, 
place  a  king  over  you,"  but,  "  When  thou  art  come  unto  the 
land,  and  shalt  say,  /  will  set,"  etc. 

Professor  Kcil  finds  the  wrong  in  their  overlooking  their 
own  misconduct,  and  in  distrusting  God  and  his  guidance.     "In 

'  See  Menassch  ben  Israel's  Conciliator,  i.  285-289. 
20 


230  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

such  a  state  of  mind  as  this,  their  desire  for  a  king  was  a 
contempt  and  rejection  of  the  kingly  government  of  Jehovah, 
and  was  nothing  more  than  forsaking  him  to  serve  other  gods." 

Motherhood. 

Blessed.  To  he  expiated. 

Thf  wife  shall  be  as  a  fruitful  vine  by        She  shall  bring  a  Iamb  of  the  first 
the  sides  of  thy  house.    Fs,  cxxviii.  3.      year  for  a  burnt-nflering.  and  a  young 

pigeon,  or  a  turtle-dove,  for  a  sin-ofl'er- 
ing,  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  unto  the  priest :  who 
shall  offer  it  before  the  Loud,  and  make 
an  atonement  for  her.    Lev.  xii.  6,  7. 

Michaelis  thinks  that  Moses,  by  such  laws,  intended  to 
"  represent  theological  truths  in  a  figurative  manner." 

Abarbanel  ^ :  "As  no  one  bears  pains  and  troubles  in  this 
world  without  guilt ;  and  as  there  is  no  chastisement  without 
sin ;  and  lastly,  as  every  woman  bears  children  with  jiain  and 
danger,  hence  every  one  is  commanded,  after  childbirth,  to  offer 
an  expiatory  sacrifice." 

Leyrer^  says  that  this  and  all  the  other  rites  of  purification 
were  intended  "  to  foster  the  constant  humiliation  of  fallen  man ; 
to  remind  him  in  all  the  leading  processes  of  natural  life  — 
generation,  birth,  eating,  disease,  death  — how  everything,  even 
his  own  bodily  nature,  lies  under  the  curse  of  sin,  that  so  the 
law  might  become  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  unto  Christ,  and 
awaken  and  sustain  the  longing  for  a  Redeemer  from  the  curse 
which  had  fallen  upon  his  body." 

Mr.  Clark,  in  Bible  Commentary  :  "  The  conclusion,  then, 
appears  to  be  reasonable  that  all  the  rites  of  purification  were 
intended  to  remind  the  Israelite  that  he  belong<'d  to  a  fallen 
race,  and  that  he  needed  a  purification  and  atonement  which 
he  could  not  effect  for  himself." 

Paul's  moral  state. 

Nothing  good  in  him.  Christ  dwelt  in  him. 

For  I   know  tlia»  in  me  (that  is,  in        J   live;  yet   not   1,   but  Christ  livetli 
my   fle.>ih,)   dwelleth    n^i    good    tiling,    in  nic.    Oal.  ii.  '20. 
Kom.  vii.  18. 

'  On  Lev.  xii.;  quoted  in  Outrum  on  Sacrifices,  p.  145.  *  In  KeiL 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES,  231 

In  these  passages  Paul  speaks  in  two  distinct  relations.  "  In 
me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,"  —  in  my  lower,  carnal  self.  "  Christ 
liveth  in  me,"  —  in  my  higher,  spiritual  self,  in  my  renewed 
heart  in  which  Christ  is  enthroned.  This  is  Alford's  view. 
Hodge  takes  substantially  the  same  view.  Some  interpret  the 
first  text  as  describing  Paul  previous  to  his  conversion ;  the 
latter,  as  applying  to  him  after  that  event. 

Piety  evinced. 

By  profession.  Profession  useless. 

No  man  can  sav  that  Jesus  is  the  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me, 
Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  Cor.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
xii.  3.  dom  of  heaven.    Matt.  vii.  21. 

And  why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and 
do  not  the  things  which  1  say  ?  Luke 
vi.  46. 

The  word  "  say,"  in  the  fu'st  text,  does  not  imply  the  mere 
utterance  of  the  words,  but  the  hearty  and  spontaneous  con- 
fession of  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  In  the  last  texts 
the  calling  of  him  "  Lord,"  "  Lord,"  is  mere  lip-service. 

Prayer. 

May  he  in  public.  Should  he  in  private. 

And  Solomon  stood  before  the  altar  ITe  went  in  therefore,  and  shut  the 
of  the  Loud  in  the  presence  of  all  the  door  upon  them  twain,  and  prayed 
congregation  of  Israel,  and  spread  fnrth  unto  the  Lord  2  Kings  iv  3^3. 
his  hands  toward  heaven.  And  he  said,  W'hen  thou  prayest,  thou  shalt  not  be 
LoRi>  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  God  as  the  hypocrites  are:  for  they  hive  to 
like  tliee.     1  Kings  viii.  22,  23.  pray  standing  in  the  synagogues  and  in 

His  windows  being  open  in  his  cham-  the' corners  of  the  streets,  that  they 
ber  toward  Jerusalem,  he  kneeled  upon  may  be  seen  of  men.  Verily  I  say  unto 
his  knees  three  times  a  day,  and  i)rayed,  yi>u,  they  liave  their  reward.  But  tlmu, 
and  gave  thanks  before  liis  God,  as  he  nhen  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy 
did  af(irctinii>.  Then  these  men  assem-  closet,  and  \\  hen  thou  hast  shut  thy 
bled,  and  found  Daniel  praying.  Dan.  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in 
vi.  10,  11.  secret.    Matt,  vi  5,  6. 

I  will  therefore  that  men  pray  every  He  went  out  into  a  mountain  to 
■where.    1  Tim.  ii.  8.  pray,  and  continued  all  night  iu  prayer 

to  God      Luke  vi.  12. 

I'eter  went  up  upon  the  house-top  to 
pray,  about  the  sixth  hour.  Acts  x.  9. 

It  is  not  publicity,  but  ostentation  in  prayer,  which  is  pro- 
hibited; not  praying  in  public,  but  praying  in  conspicuous 
places  to  "  be  seen  of  men."  The  motive,  not  the  ])lace,  is  the 
thing  in  question.  Chiysostom  and  Augustine  both  caution  us 
against  a  merely  literal  interpretiitiou  of  JMatt.  vi.  6. 


232  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

Incessant.  Brief. 

Because  of  his  importunity  he  will  When  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repeti- 

rise  and  give  iiim  as  many  as  he  need-  tions  as'  the  heathen  do ;  for  they  think 

eth.     Luke  xi.  8  that  they  shall  be  lieard  for  tlieir  much 

Men  ought  always  to  pray,  and  not  to  speaking.      Be  not   ye    therefore  like 

faint;  ...  Shall  not  God  avenge  his  own  unto  them:    for  your  Father  knoweth 

elect,  which  cry  day  and  night  unto  what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye 

him.    Luke  xviii.  1,  7.  ask  him.    Matt.  vi.  7.  8. 

There  are  abundant  examples  of  the  "  vain  repetitions " 
which  Jesus  prohibits.  Lightfoot  adduces  a  Jewish  maxim, 
"  He  who  multiplies  prayer  is  heard." 

The  priests  of  Baal,  in  their  frantic  orgies  before  their  idol's 
sacrifices,  cried  from  morning  even  until  noon  saying, "  O  Baal, 
hear  us  ;  O  Baal,  hear  us."  ^  Another  instance  is  that  of  the 
mob  at  Ephesus,  who  for  about  two  hours  cried  out,  "  Great 
is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians."  ^ 

The  Mohammedan  monks  in  India  often  practise  these 
"  vain  repetitions  "  for  days  together.  They  have  been  known 
to  repeat  a  single  syllable  of  supposed  religious  efficacy  until 
their  strength  was  exhausted,  and  they  could  no  longer  speak.^ 
A  missionary  writes  that  in  Orissa  some  heathen  worshippers 
sit  for  many  hours  of  the  day  and  night  pronouncing  the  name 
of  Krisnu  on  a  string  of  beads. 

Alford,  with  great  fitness,  adduces  the  "  Paternosters  "  and 
"  Ave  Marias  "  of  the  Romish  church  as  examples  in  point. 

It  is  such  idle,  empty  "  repetitions  "  as  the  above  which  the 
Greek  term  "  battalogeo  "  designates,  and  which  Christ  con- 
demns, and  not  fervent,  importunate  supplication. 

Mepentance. 

Esau  unable  to  repeid.  Ought  to  have  repented. 

lie  found   no   jilace  of   rci)Oiitance,        God  . . .  commandeth  all   men  every 
though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears,    where  to  repent.    Acts  xvii.  30. 
ileb.  xii.  17. 

Most  modern  commentators,  as  Stuart,  Tholuck,  Ebrard, 
Barnes,  interpret  the  first  text,  "  found  no  place  for  a  change 
of  mind  m  his  father."     But  Alford,  Bleek,  Delitzsch,  De  Wette, 

'  1  Killers  xviii.  20-29. 

'  Acts  xix.  34. 

'  Hackett  on  Acts,  p.  822.    See,  also,  Morier's  Second  Journey,  p.  176. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  233 

Hofmann,  and  others  take  it  as  meaning  that  he  found  no  way 
open  to  reverse  what  had  been  done.  "  He  might  cliange  ; 
but  the  penalty  could  not,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  circum- 
stances, be  taken  off."  He  might  secure  the  salvation  of  his 
soul ;  but  he  could  not  regain  the  forfeited  birthright,  nor 
secure  the  revocation  of  the  blessing  pronounced  prophetically 
upon  Jacob. 

Rigliteousness. 
Perilous.  Want  of  it,  perilous. 

Be  not  righteous  over  much;  neither  Be  not  over  much  wicked,  neither  be 
make  thyself  over  wise:  why  shouldest  thou  foolish:  why  shouldest  thou  die 
thou  destroy  thyself?    Eccl.  vii.  16.  before  thy  time ?    Eccl.  vii.  17. 

The  first  text  is  a  caution  against  pharisaic  self -righteousness, 
laying  claim  to  superior  wisdom  and  sanctity,  and  incurring 
the  penalty  which  God  sends  upon  arrogance  and  hypocrisy. 

The  second  admonishes  us  to  be  on  our  guard  against  crossing 
the  border-line  which  separates  the  righteous,  who  is  still 
subject  to  weakness  and  error,  from  the  wilful  transgressor. 
Zockler,  referring  to  these  texts,  says  :  "  A  recommendation 
to  avoid  the  two  extremes  of  false  righteousness  and  bold 
wickedness." 

The  gist  of  the  whole  is  :  Avoid  extremes  in  all  things. 

Sabbath. 

Sanctioned.  Repudiated. 

Remember  the  sabbath-day  to  keep  it  Tlie  new-moons  and  sabbaths,  the 
holy.     Ex.  XX.  8.  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot   away 

Blessed  is  the  man  that  dooth  this,    with ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn 
and  the  son  of  man  <AaMayeth  hold  on    meetinjr.    Isa.  i.  13. 
it;  that  keepeth  the  sabbath  from  pol-        One  man  estcemeth  one  day  above 
luting  it.    Isa.  Ivi.  2.  another:  another  esteemeth  every  day 

alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind.  Koni.  xiv.  5. 
Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in 
meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a 
holy-day,  or  of  the  new-moon,  or  of 
the  sabbath-(/a)/s.    Col.  ii.  16. 

The  reason  why  the  Sabbath  keeping  and  other  observances 
of  the  Israelites  were  not  acceptable  to  God,  is  set  forth  by 
Isaiah,  in  a  subsequent  verse,  thus :  "  Your  hands  are  full  of 
blood." 

As  to  the  text  from  Romans,  Stuart,  Barnes,  Hodge,  and 
others  think  that  Paul  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  "  Lord's 
20* 


234  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

day  "  at  all,  but  of  certain  Jewish  festivals,  the  passover,  feast 
of  tabernacles,  and  the  like,  wliich  a  man  might  observe  or  not, 
as  he  saw  fit. 

Col.  ii.  16,  is  interpreted  by  Gilfillan^  as  referring  to  the 
Jewish  sabbath,  or  "  seventh  day,"  which  had  been  superseded  by 
"  the  Lord's  day  " ;  the  latter  being,  at  the  time  of  Paul's  writing, 
acknowledged  and  observed  by  the  whole  Christian  church. 

Others,  from  the  fact  that  the  term  '•  sabbath  "  is  appUed,  in 

the  Old  Testament,  not    only  to  the  seventh  day,  but  to  all 

the  days  of  holy  rest  observed  by  the  Hebrews,  and  particidarly 

to  the  beginning  and  close  of  their  gi-eat  festivals,  understand 

the  last  text  as  not  intended  to  include  the  weekly  day  of  rest. 

Instituted  for  one  reason.  For  a  different  reason. 

For  tjisix  days  the  Lord  made  heav-  And  remember  tliat  thou  wast  a  ser- 
en  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all  that  in  vant  in  the  land  of  Ecrypt,  and  that  the 
them  IS,  and  rested  the  seventh  day:  Loed  thy  God  broufrh't  thee  out  thence 
wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  sab-  through  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a 
bath-day,  and  hallowed  it.    Ex.  xx.  11.    strotclied-out  arm:  therefore  the  Lord 

thy  (ii)d  commanded  thee  to  keep  the 
sabbath-day.    Deut.  v.  15. 

This  is  an  example  of  two  concurrent  reasons  for  the  same 
observance.  The  primary  reason  why  all  mankind  should 
keep  the  Sabbath  is  that  the  Creator  rested  on  that  day.  An 
additional  and  special  reason  why  the  Israelites  should  keep 
it  was  the  fact  that  they  had  been  delivered  from  Egyptian 
bondage  by  the  Author  of  the  Sabbath. 

If  it  were  said  to  the  freedmen  of  this  country,  "  You  should 
observe  the  first  day  of  January,  because  it  is  the  beginning  of 
a  new  year  "  ;  and  a  little  after :  "  You  should  observe  the  first 
day  of  January,  because  it  is  the  anniversary  of  your  emanci- 
pation by  President  Luicolu,"  there  would  be  no  discrepancy. 

Sabbath  desecration. 

Prohibited.  Countenanced. 

Whosoever  doeth  any   work  in  tlie        At  that  time  ./esiis  went  on  the  sab- 

gabbath-day  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  bath-day   through    the  corn,   and   his 

death.     E.\.  xxxi.  lo.  di>cipl(>s  were  a  hungered,  and  began 

They   found   a    man     that    gathered  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn,  and  to  eat, 

sticka  upon  the  sabbath-day.  ...  And  etc.    Matt.  xii.  1-5. 

'  "The  Sabbath,"  pp.  303-318.  See,  also,  Justin  Edwards'a  "Sabbath 
Manual,"  pp.  117-127. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  235 

Prohibited.  Countenanced. 

all  the  conjrregation  brouf»ht  him  with-  And  therefore  did  the  Jews  persecute 

out  the  camp,  and  stonod  him  with  Jesus',  and  soufrht  to  slay  liim,  because 

stones,  and  he  died:  as  the  Loud  com-  he  liad  done  tliefe  things  on  the  sab- 

mauded  Moses.    Aum.  xv.  32,  S6.  bath-day.    John  v.  IG. 

Deeds  of  necessity  and  mercy  were  not  forbidden  by  Moses. 
Eating,  drinking,  caring  for  the  sick,  and  like  needful  acts 
were  not  interdicted.  Our  Saviour  did  not  "•  break  "  the  Sab- 
bath. He  did.  indeed,  disregard  the  foolish  traditions  of  the 
scribes  and  pharisees  relative  to  that  day,  but  neither  by  precept 
nor  example  did  he  sanction  its  real  desecration. 


SacHfices. 

Appointed.  Disavoiced. 

Thou  shalt  burn  the  whole  ram  upon        Will  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink 
the  altar:   it  is  a  burnt-offering  unto    the  blood  of  goats?    Offer  unto  God 
the Lor.D.  ...  And  thou  shalt  offer  every    thanksgiving;  and  pay  thy  vows  unto 
day  a    bullock  for  a   sin-offering  for    the  Most  High.    Ps.  1.'13,  14. 
atonement.    Ex.  xxix.  18,  36.  For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else 

would  I  give  it :  thou  delighte.st  not  in 
burnt  offering.     I's.  li.  16 

To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of 
your  sacrifices  unto  me?  saith  the 
Lord  :  I  am  full  of  the  burnt-offerings 
of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts;  and 
I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks, 
or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  When  ye 
come  to  a])pear  before  me,  who  hath 
required  this  at  your  hand,  to  tread  my 
courts?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations: 
incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me. 
Isa.  i.  11-1.3. 

Your  burnt-offerings  are  not  accept- 
able, nor  voursacrilices  sweet  unto  me. 
Jer.  vi.  20. 

For  1  sjiake  not  unto  your  fathers, 
nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that 
I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  concerning  burnt-offerings  or 
sacrifices:  but  this  thing  commanded  I 
them,  saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  I 
will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
people.  '  J(>r.  vii.  22,  23. 

For  I  desired  mercy,  and  not  sacri- 
fice; and  the  knowledge  of  God  more 
than  burnt-offerings,    ilos.  vi.  6. 

The  first  quotation  from  Psalms  sets  forth  God's  spirituality, 
as  a  result  of  which  "  the  outward  sacrifices,  as  such,  can  yield 
him  no  satisfaction." 

The  second  contrasts  mere  external  sacrijices  with  that 
obedience  in  default  of  which  all  sacrifices  are  worthless.  The 
offerings  spoken   of  by  Isaiah  and   Jeremiah  (sixth  chapter) 


236  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

were  rejected  because  of  the  wickedness  of  the  offerers.  Their 
hands  were  "  full  of  blood,"  and  they  had  "  rejected "  God's 
law.  Reason  enough  for  the  non-accejitance  of  their  oblations. 
Jer.  vii.  22,  23  is  susceptible  of  two  interpretations.' 

First.  It  may  be  taken  as  a  Hebraistic  way  of  saying,  "  At 
that  time,  I  laid  no  stress  upon  mere  sacrifices  in  comparison 
with  true  obedience.  This  explanation  is  given  by  Calvin  and 
Stuart,  also  by  Dr.  Priestley  and  Prof.  Norton.^  This  inter- 
pretation is  in  harmony  with  Hos.  vi.  6,  also  with  Samuel's 
language  to  Saul :  "  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt- 
offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord  ? 
Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than 
the  fat  of  rams."^ 

Secondly.  The  quotation  may  mean,  "  I  gave  the  command 
relative  to  obedience  previous  to  that  concerning  sacrifices." 
This  interpretation,  propounded  by  the  Jewish  critics,  agrees 
with  the  facts  in  the  case.  The  command  respecting  obedience 
was  given  at  Marah,*  just  after  the  Hebrews  left  the  Red  Sea ; 
those  pertaining  to  sacrifices  were  mainly  given  at  Mount  Sinai.* 
at  a  later  period  of  the  history. 

It  is  clear  that  none  of  the  foregoing  texts  disparage  sac- 
rifices offered  aright.     Heartless  offerings  are  ever  rejected. 

Expiatory.  Not  expiatory. 

And  the  priest  shall  mako  an  atone-  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood 
ment  for  him.  as  concerninj?  his  sin,  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him.  Lev.  sins.  ...The  same  sacrifici*s  whioh  cau 
iv.  26.  never  take  away  sins.    Heb.  x.  4,  11. 

The  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood: 
and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the 
altar,  to  make  an  atonement  tor  your 
Bouls.     Lev.  .wii.  11. 

One  kid  of  the  goats /or  a  sin-ofler- 
ing,  to  make  an  atonement  for  you. 
Num.  xxix.  6. 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  says  that  sin  and  trespass  offerings  "  were 

'  Mairec  on  Atonement,  pp  116,  147  (Bohn's  edition). 

*  Evidences  of  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ii.  Note  D.  p.  cxl. 

« 1  Sam.  XV.  22. 

«  Kx.  XV.  25,  26. 

'  Ex.  xxix;  Lev.  i.  to  viii. 

» Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  287 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  237 

regarded  as  possessing  an  atoning,  expiatory  power — that  they 
were  substituted  in  place  of  the  sinner  who  brought  them, 
bearing  the  punishment  of  his  transgression,  and  so  procuring 
its  pardon  from  God.  By  their  means  sins  were  taken  away 
and  covered.  The  Deity  was  appeased."  Of  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood,  he  adds,  "  The  act  of  sprinkling  was  symbolical, 
implying  that  the  person  who  offered  the  sacrifice  had  forfeited 
his  life,  and  the  life  of  the  animal  was  forfeited  instead."  So 
Kalisch  ^ :  "It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  sacrifice  was  entertained  by  the  Hebrews.  . . .  The 
animal  dies  to  symbolize  the  death  deserved  by  the  offerer  on 
account  of  his  sins." 

It  does  not,  however,  appear  that  these  sacrifices  were 
deemed  to  have,  per  se,  the  power  to  remove  sin.  They  were 
a  condition,  but  not  the  cause,  of  pardon.  As  Alford  and 
Ebrard  say,  they  were  "  not  the  instrument  of  complete  vicarious 
propitiation,  but  an  exhibition  of  the  postulate  of  such  pro- 
pitiation." 

Outram  also  regards  them  merely  as  a  '*  condition  of  pardon." 

These  sacrifices,  being  a  "  yearly  remembrance  "  of  sin,  since 

they  could  not  make  the  offerer  "  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the 

conscience,"  pointed  him  to  the  great  Sacrifice,  which  "  taketh 

away  the  sin  of  the  world." 

Human  sacrifices  sanctioned.  Stringently  prohibited. 

Take  now  thy  son,   thine  only  son       And  thou  phalt  not  let  any  of  thy 
Isaac,  wlit)m  t))ou  lovcst,  and  get  thoe    seed  pass  through  the  fire  to  ilolech. 
into  the  land  of  Mnriah;  and  oflor  him     Lev.  xviii.  21. 
therefor  a  bunit-iiflerinjr.   (jen.xxii.2.        Whosoever  he  be  of  the  children  of 

Joshua,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  took    Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  .sojourn 
Achan  the  son  ofZerah.and  the  silver,    in  Israel,  that  piveth  any  of  his  seed 
and  the  parment,   and  the  wedge  of    unto  Molech,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to 
gold,  and  his  sons,  and  his  daughters,    death.    Lev.  xx.  2. 
and  his   oxen,   and  his  iL<ses,  and  his 
sheep,  and   his   tent,   and   all   that  he 
had;  and  they  brought  them  unto  the 
valley    of    Achor.   ...   And    all    Israel 
stoned   him    with   stones,  and   burned 
them  with  lire,  after  they  had  stoned 
tliem  with  stones.     Josh.  vii.  24,  25. 

And  Jeiihthah  vowed  a  vow  unto  the 
Loud.  . .  .  Whatsoever  Cometh  forth  of 
the  doors  of  my  house  to  meet  me, 
when  I  return  in  peace  from  the  chil- 

'  On  Leviticus.  Part  i.  pp.  192,  193. 


238  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE    BIBLE. 

Human  mcrifices  savctioned.  Stringently  prohibited. 

drpn  of  Ammon,  sliall  suroly  be  the 
Lord's,  and  1  will  offer  it  up  for  a 
burnt-offpriiif;.  .  . .  Uphold  his  daughter 
came  out  to  meot  liim  witli  timbrels 
and  with  d:  ;  cos:  and  she  wa'^  liis  only- 
child.  . . .  Her  father,  who  did  with  her 
accortUnff  to  liis  vow  which  he  had 
vowed ;  and  she  knew  no  man.  J  udg. 
xi.  33-40. 

The  kin.?  took  the  two  sons  of  Riz- 
pah,  . . .  and  the  five  sons  of  Michal  the 
dau.srhter  of  Saul.  . .  .  And  he  delivered 
them  into  the  hands  of  the  Gibeonites, 
and  they  han^jed  them  in  the  hill  before 
the  Loud.  . . .  And  after  that  (iod  wag 
entreated  for  the  land.  2  Sam.  xxi. 
8,  9,  14. 

As  to  the  case  of  Abraham,  God's  design  was  not  to  secure 
a  certain  outward  act,  but  a  certain  state  of  mind,  a  willingness 
to  give  up  the  beloved  object  to  Jehovah.  "  The  principle  of 
this  great  trial,"  says  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,^  "  was  the  same 
which  has  been  applied  to  God's  servants  in  every  age,  — 
whether  they  were  willing  to  part  with  what  they  loved  best 
on  earth  when  God's  service  called  for  it."  Hengstenberg  ^ : 
"  Verse  1 2  shows  that  satisfaction  was  rendered  to  the  Lord's 
command  when  the  spiritual  sacrijice  was  completed."  In  this 
view  concur  Warburton,  Keil,  Murphy,  Lange,^  Bush,  Words- 
worth, and  other  authorities. 

Kixrtz  *  says :  "  It  is  true  that  God  did  not  seek  the  slaying 
of  Isaac  in  facto,  but  only  the  implicit  surrender  of  the  lad  in 
mind  and  Iteart."  The  command,  in  the  original,  is  somewhat 
ambiguous :  "  Make  him  ascend  for  a  burnt-offering."  This 
Abraham  interpreted  literally,  as  implying  the  actual  slaying 
of  his  son.  This  his  mistake  was  the  means  of  developing  and 
testing  his  faith. 

The  assumed  slaughter  of  Achan's  children  a  recent  author 
terms  "a  cruel  and  unjust  thing,  forbidden  in  Deut.  xxiv.  16, 
yet  afterwards  perpetrated  with  the  Divine  sanction." 

This  case  has  been  already  discussed  under  "  Justice  of  God." 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  here  that  the  case  furnishes  no  sanction  of 

'  Sliscel.  Works,  p.  150  (N.Y.  edition).        -  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  114. 
«  Com.  on  Genesis,  pp.  79,  80.  *  Hist,  of  Old.  Gov.  i.  263. 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  239 

the  abominable  custom  of  slaughtering  human  beings  in  sacrifice. 
As  has  been  elsewhere  suggested,  for  anything  that  we  know 
to  the  contrary,  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  may  all  have  been 
full-grown,  and  may  have  encouraged  and  participated  in  the 
sacrUege  in  which  he  took  the  lead.  This  is  Keil's  view  of  the 
case. 

In  reference  to  Jephthah's  supposed  sacrifice  of  his  daughter, 
it  may  be  said,  First.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  he  did  offer  her 
as  a  burnt-offering.  The  Bible  does  not  say  that  he  did  this. 
If,  through  ignorance  and  a  misguided  fanaticism,  he  actually 
committed  the  cruel  deed,  it  does  not  appear  that  God  in  any 
manner  sanctioned  it.  The  sacred  historian  expresses  no 
opinion  in  regard  to  it.  The  apparent  commendation  of 
Jephthah,  in  Heb.  xi.  32,  api^lies  to  the  general  tenor  of  his 
life,  and  not,  necessarily,  to  every  act  performed  by  him  in 
that  remote  age. 

Secondly.  There  are  good  reasons  for  holding,  with  Auberlen, 
Bush,  Cassel,  Delitzsch,  Grotius,  Hengstenberg,  Houbigant, 
Keil,  the  Kimchis,  Lange,  LeClerc,  Lilienthal,  Saalschiitz, 
Schudt,  Waterland,  and  other  critics,  that,  instead  of  being 
offered  as  a  burnt-sacrifice,  she  was  simply  devoted  to  perpetual 
celibacy  in  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.* 

(a)  The  literal  sacrifice  of  human  beings  was  strictly  for- 
bidden in  the  INIosaic  law ;  and  Jephchah  was  doubtless  fully 
aware  of  this  fact. 

(J))  The  Hebrew  of  Jephthah's  vow  may  be  correctly  trans- 
lated, "  Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,^  or  I  will  offer  it  up  for  a 
burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson^:  "It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
conjunction  '  vav '  may  be  rendered  or.  The  Hebrew  language 
had  very  few  conjunctions,  and  therefore  one  had  to  fulfil  the 
office  of  several  in  otlier  languages."     Dr.  Randolph,  J.  Kimchi, 

*  See  allusion  to  something  similar;  Ex.  xxxviii.  8  and  1  Sam.  ii.  22.^ 

-  Compare  1  Sam.  i.  11.  "I  will  give  him  unto  the  Lord  all  the  days  of 
his  life." 

*  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  476. 


240  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

and  Auberlen  render,  "  Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will 
offer  to  him  a  burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson  says :  "  We 
admit  that  the  construction  is  grammatically  possible ;  for 
examjiles  justify  it,  as  Gesenius  shows."  Either  of  these 
translations  removes  the  difficulty. 

(c)  During  the  "  two  months "  which  intervened  between 
Jephthah's  return  and  the  supposed  sacrifice,  it  is  scarcely 
credible  that  the  priests  would  not  have  interfered  to  pre- 
vent the  barbarous  deed,  or  that  Jephthah  himself  would  not 
have  "  inquired  of  the  Lord "  respecting  a  release  from  his 
vow. 

(d)  As  she  was  Jephthah's  only  child,  to  devote  her  to  per- 
petual virginity  would  preclude  him  from  all  hope  of  posterity, 
—  in  the  estimation  of  a  Jew,  a  most  humiliating  and  calamitous 
deprivation. 

(e)  The  phraseology  of  verses  37-40  points  clearly  to  a  life 
of  perpetual  and  enforced  celibacy.  On  any  other  hypothesis 
the  language  seems  irrelevant  and  unmeaning.  As  Keil  ex- 
presses it,  to  bewail  one's  virginity  does  not  mean  to  mourn 
because  one  has  to  die  a  virgin,  but  because  one  has  to  live 
and  remain  a  virgin.  Inasmuch  as  the  history  lays  special 
emphasis  upon  her  bewailing  her  virginity,  this  must  have  stood 
in  some  peculiar  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  vow.  Observe, 
too,  that  this  lamentation  takes  place  "  upon  the  moimtains." 
Cassel  observes  that  if  life  had  been  in  question  her  tears  might 
have  been  shed  at  home.  But  lamentations  of  this  character 
could  not  be  uttered  in  the  towm  and  in  the  presence  of  men. 
For  such  plaints,  modesty  required  the  solitude  of  the  moimtains. 
The  words  of  the  thirty-ninth  verse  are  very  explicit.  They 
assert  that  her  father  fulfilled  liis  vow  through  the  fact  that 
"  she  knew  no  man."  That  is,  the  vow  was  fulfilled  in  the 
dedication  of  her  life  to  the  Lord,  as  a  spiritual  burnt-offering, 
in  ji  life-long  chastity. 

"  Completeness  of  consecration  as  a  spiritual  sacrifice  "  seems 
the  pervading  idea  in  the  case  of  Jephthah's  sacrifice. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  241 

In  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  the  designation,  Saul's  "  bloody  house,"  inti- 
mates strongly  that  the  men  whom  a  recent  writer  pathetically 
deplores  as  "  innocent  grandchildi-en  "  were  really  participants 
in  the  crime  of  their  departed  progenitor.  He  had  gone 
beyond  the  reach  of  earthly  justice ;  hence  the  penalty  fell 
upon  his  surviving  partners  in  treachery  and  blood.  David 
Kimchi'  tentatively,  and  Dr.  Jahn^  confidently  propose  this 
very  reasonable  explanation  of  the  case. 

On  the  whole,  none  of  the  foregoing  cases  represents  human 
sacrifices  as  sanctioned  by  the  Almighty. 

Service  of  God. 

With  fear.  With  gladness. 

Serve  the  Lord  with  tear,  and  rejoice  Serve  the  Lord  with  gladness.  Ps. 
with  trembling.    Ps.  ii.  11.  c.  2. 

Reverential  fear  and  devout  gladness  are  quite  compatible. 

Sin  forgiven. 

All  sin  pardonable.  Some  unpardonable. 

And  by  him  all  that  believe  are  jus-  Whosoever.=peaketh  a;iainst  the  Holy 
tified  from  all  things  from  which  ye  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
could  not  be  justilied  by  the  law  of  neither  in  this  world,  neitlier  in  the 
Moses.     Acts  xiii.  39.  world  to  come.     Matt,  xii  32 

Whore  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  He  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
more  abound.     Rom.  v.  20  Holy  Ohost  hath  never  forgiveness,  but 

It  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation, 
with    the    Father,    Jesus    Christ    the    Mark  iii.  29. 

righteous.     1  John  ii.  1.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death:  I  do  not 

say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it.    1  John 
V.  16. 

The  texts  at  the  left  by  no  means  assert  that  every  sin, 
wherever  and  by  whomsoever  committed,  will  be  forgiven. 
The  general  rule  is  that  sins  repented  of  will  be  forgiven. 
Matthew  and  IMark  speak  of  sins  which  will  never  be  repented  of, 
consequently  never  forgiven  ;  hence  they  are  sins  "  unto  death." 

Sin-offering. 

One  kind.  A  different  Icind. 

When  the  sin  which  they  have  sinned  Ifaufjhf  be  committed  by  ignorance 

against  it  is  known,  tin  n  the  congre-  without  the  know'edge  of  the  congii-- 

pation  shall  oiler  u  young  hullock  for  gallon,  that  all  the  congregation  .«liall 

the  sin.    ..  When  a  ruler  hath  sinned,  ofler  one  young   bullock   tor  a   burnt- 

. .  .  if  liis  sin  wherein  he  hath  siniii'd,  oU'ering, . .  .and  one  kid  of  thegoats  for 

come  to  Ills  knowledge;  he  shall  bring  a  sin-oflering.     Kum.  xv.  24. 
his  otTeriiig,  a  kid  ot  the  goats.     Lev. 
iv.  14,  22,  23. 

'  Mcnasscli  lien  I.-iracl's  Conciliator,  1.  167. 
*  History  of  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  p.  4'>  (Ward's  edition). 
21 


242  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

We  think  the  difference  here  is  due  to  condensation  on  the 
part  of  the  later  writer.  In  the  first  case,  the  offering  for  the 
congregation  and  that  for  the  ruler  are  specified  separately  ;  in 
the  second  case,  for  brevity's  sake,  the  congregation  and  the 
rulers  are  considered  as  one,  and  their  respective  offerings  are 
spoken  of  as  constituting  but  one  offering. 

Mr.  Espin,  in  Bible  Commentary,  says  that,  in  the  citation 
from  Leviticus,  the  reference  is  to  sins  of  commission ;  in  that 
from  Numbers,  to  sins  of  omission.  Hence  there  is  a  slight 
difference  in.  the  ritual. 

Sinners'  feeling. 

Feared  greatly.  No  fear  in  the  case. 

There  were  they  in  great  fear.    Ps.         Inhere  no  fear  was.    Ts.  liii.  6. 
liii.  6. 

"The  wicked  flee  when  no  man  pursueth."     Prov.  xxviii.  1. 

Feared  the  Lord.  Feared  not  the  Lord. 

So  these  nations  foared  the  Loud,  and  Unto  this  day  they  do  after  the  for- 

servtd  their  graven  images.    2  Kings  mer  manners :  they  fear  not  the  Lord. 

xvii.  41.  2  Kings  xvii.  34. 

^Vn  instructive  example  of  the  use  of  the  same  word  in  dif- 
ferent senses. 

Staves  of  ark. 

To  remain.  Might  be  removed. 

Tlie  staves  shall  be  in  the  rings  of  tlie  Aaron  shall  come,  and  his  sons,  and 
ark:  they  shall  not  be  taken  from  it.  tliey  shall  takedown  the  covering  vail, 
Ex.  XXV.  15.  and  cover  the  ark  of  testimony  with  it; 

. . .  and  shall  put  in  the  staves  thereof. 
Num.  iv.  5,  6. 

Keil  renders  Num.  iv.  G,  "  Adjust  its  bearing-poles."  Simi- 
larly Bush,  Nachmanides,  ^Vbarbaiiel,  and  Rashi.  Bible  Com- 
mentary, "  Put  the  staves  thereof  in  order." 

Sivearing  and  oaths. 

Countenanced.  Prohibited. 

And   Abraham    said,   I   will    swear.  By  swearing,  and  lying,  and  killing, 

(Jen    xxi.  24.  andstea'ing.     llos.  iv.  2. 

And  Jaci)b  sware  bv  the  Fear  of  his  It   hath   been   said   by   them   of  old 

father  Isaac      (ien.  xxxi   63.  lime,  TIkiu  shalt  not  forswear  thyself, 

Tlioii  shalt  fear  the  LnKV  thy  (iod,  but  shalt  |ieifiirm  unto  the  Lord  iliine 

and  srTve  him,  and  shalt  swear' by  hi*  oaths:  but  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not 

uami'.      Di'Ut    vl.  13.  at    all;    neither   by    heaven;     for   it    is 

I  adjiiPf  thee  by  the  living  (iod.  that  (iod's  throne:   nor  by  the  earth  ;  for  it 

thou  tell  us  whellKT  thou  be  the  Christ,  is  his  footstool  :   neither  by  .IcniMilem; 

Malt.  xxvi.  (;3.  for  it   is   the  city  of  the  gnat   Kiiisr. 

1  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  Neither  t-halt  thou  swear  by  thy  head; 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  243 

Countenanced.  Prohibited. 

my  consciencp  also  boarinfi:  me  witness  because  thou  canst  not  make  one  hair 

in  till'  Holy  (iliost.     Hum.  ix.  1.  white  or  black.     I5ut  let  your  cominu- 

AVhen  Ood  made  promise  to  Abra-  iiicatlon  be  Vea,  yea:   May,  nay:  for 

ham,  because  lie  could  swear  by  no  wliatsoever  i,s  more  than  tliese  cometh 

prreatcr,   he  sware  by  himself      Heb.  of  evil.    Matt.  v.  3^i-37. 

vi.  13.  But  above  all  things,  my  brethren, 

The  anjrel  which  I  saw  ...  lifted  up  swear  riot,  neither  by  heaven,  neither 

his  hand  to  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  by    the   earth,   neither    by   any   other 

that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever.    llev.  x.  oath  :  but  let  your  yea  be  yea.  and  >jour 

5,  6.  nay,  nay;  lest  ye  fall  into  condemna- 
tion.   James  v.  12. 

The  context  puts  it  beyond  doubt  that  Hosea  speaks  oi  false 
"  swearing."  It  is  equally  clear  that  our  Lord,  in  Matthew, 
does  not  refer  to  judicial  oaths,  but  to  profane  siveai-ing,  or 
oaths  in  common  conversation.     In  proof,  observe : 

First.  The  Jews  in  that  age  were  in  the  habit  of  using  vain 
and  frivolous  oaths  in  their  ordinary  talk.  They  swore  by  the 
temple,  by  the  earth,  by  heaven,  by  the  head,  etc.  So  long  as 
they  did  not  use  the  name  of  God  in  these  oaths,  they  did  not 
deem  them  particularly  binding.  This  practice  is  alluded  to  in 
Matt,  xxiii.  1 G-22. 

Maimonides ' :  ''If  any  one  swears  by  heaven,  by  the  earth, 
by  the  sun,  and  so  forth,  although  it  is  the  intention  of  him 
who  swears  in  these  words  to  swear  by  him  who  created  these 
things,  yet  this  is  not  an  oath.  Or,  if  one  swears  by  one  of 
the  prophets  or  by  one  of  the  books  of  scripture,  although  it  be 
the  25urpose  of  the  swearer  to  swear  by  him  who  sent  that 
prophet  or  who  gave  that  book,  nevertheless  this  is  not  au 
oath."  JNIichaelis  ^  says  .that  such  oaths  were  "  at  that  time  so 
common  and  s»  frequently  and  basely  abused  as  to  have  become 
perfectly  disgraceful  to  the  Jews,  even  in  the  eyes  of  the  less 
treacherous  heathen  around  them,  and  justly  distinguished  by 
the  name  of  Jewish  oaths."  Against  this  abuse  of  language 
the  Lord  cautioned  his  disciples :  "  Let  your  speech,  or  con- 
versation '  logos,'  be  yea,  yea ;  nay,  nay."  "  Do  not  attempt 
to  bolster  up  your  veracity  by  frivolous  oaths." 

Secondly.    So   far   from    condemning   judicial   oaths,  Jesus 

^  Quoted  by  Li^htfoot,  Ilor.  Ileh.,  p.  280  (Carpzov's  edition). 
*  Commentaries  on  Laws  of  Moses,  iv.  357. 


244  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

recoguized  their  validity,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  put  under 
oath.  When  the  high-priest  said  to  him,  "  I  adjure  thee  [put 
thee  under  oath,  cause  thee  to  swear]  by  the  living  God  that 
thou  tell  us,"  Jesus  submitted  to  be  thus  sworn,  and  responded 
to  the  solemn  obligation.  We  find,  also,  that  good  men,  an 
angel,  even  God  himself,  employed  the  "  oath  "  for  confirmation.^ 

James  v.  12  evidently  refers  to  the  frivolous  oaths  we  have 
mentioned.  Huther :  "  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  swearing  by  the 
name  of  God^  is  not  mentioned;  for  we  must  not  imagine  that 
this  is  included  in  the  last  member  of  the  clause ;  the  apostle 
intending,  evidently,  by  '  neither  any  other  oath,'  to  point  oidy  at 
similar  formulae,  of  which  several  are  mentioned  in  Matthew." 

The  mference  from  these  facts  we  leave  to  the  reader. 

Titnes  observed. 

May  be  observed.  Must  not  be  observed. 

He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth        Thorc  sliall  not  be  found  among  you 
it  unto  the  Lord.    Itom.  xiv.  6.  ...  an  observer  of  times.    l)eut.  xvlii. 

10. 

Ye  observe  days,  and  mouths,  and 
times,  and  years.    Gal.  iv.  10. 

Michaelis  and  Aben  Ezra  take  the  exj^ression,  "  observer  of 
times,"  in  Deuteronomy,  as  implying  "  divination  from  the 
course  of  the  clouds."  Gesenius  regards  it  as  denoting  "  some 
kind  of  divination  connected  with  idolatry  " ;  Fuerst :  "•'  It  is 
better  to  set  out  with  the  fundamental  signification,  to  cover, 
to  wrap  up."  Hence  the  meaning  would  be,  '"  to  practise 
enchantment  covertly  or  secretly."  Keil,''  with  certain  rabbies, 
derives  the  Hebrew  term  from  "•  ayin,"  an  eye  ;  hence,  literally, 
"  to  ogle,  to  bewitch  with  the  evil  eye."  Tlie  passage  has  no 
reference  to  the  keeping  of  the  JMosaic  feasts. 

The  texts  from  Romans  and  Galatians  refer  to  entirely  dif- 
ferent classes  of  persons.  Andrew  Fuller'*  says  that  the  former 
text  refers  to  Jewish  converts,  who,  having  from  their  youth 

'  Compare  Gen.  xxi.  28,  '24;  1  Sam.  xx.  42;  Ileb.  vi.  17, 18;  liev.  x.  5, 6. 
-  Of  course,  for  .judicial  purposes  only. 
^  On  Lev.  xix.  26. 
*  Works,  i.  680,  6«1. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  245 

observed  the  Mosaic  festivals  as  instituted  by  Divine  authority, 
were  permitted  to  continue  this  observance,  and  treated  as 
"regarding  these  days  unto  the  Lord."  The  latter  text  has 
respect  to  Gentile  converts,  who,  having  jireviously  done  service 
to  idols,^  showed  some  inclination  to  cling  to  their  former 
imauthorized  and  superstitious  observances ;  and  hence  were 
reproved. 

Trespass  recompensed. 
To  the  Lord.  To  the  priest. 

He  shall  briiipr  for  his  trespass  unto  He  shall  bring  a  ram  ...  for  a  tres- 
the  Lord  a  ram.    Lev.  v.  15.  pass-offering  unto  the  priest.    Lev.  v.  18. 

Rashi :  "  To  the  Lord  for  the  priest."  The  latter  was  the 
Lord's  deputy. 

A  tax  paid  to  the  officer  appointed  by  the  government  may 
be  said  to  be  paid  either  to  the  officer  or  to  the  government. 

II.    DUTY  OF  MAN.— To  himself. 

Anger. 

Approved.  Condemned. 

Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not :  let  not  the  Make  no  friendship  with  an  angry 
sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath.  Eph.  man :  and  with  a  furious  man  thou 
iv.  26.  Shalt  not  go.     Prov.  xxii.  24. 

Be  not  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  angry : 
for  auger  resteth  in  the  bosom  of  fools. 
Eccl.  vii.  9. 

Slow  to  wrath :  for  the  wrath  of  man 
worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God. 
Jas.  i.  19,  20. 

Paul,  says  Alford,  "  speaks  of  anger  which  is  an  infirmity, 
but  by  being  cherished  may  become  a  sin." 

Bishop  Butler-:  ''The  first  text  is  by  no  means  to  be  under- 
stood as  an  encouragement  to  indulge  ourselves  in  anger ;  the 
sense  being  certainly  this,  '  Though  ye  be  angry,  sin  not ' ;  yet 
here  is  evidently  a  distinction  made  between  anger  and  sin  — 
between  the  natural  passion  and  sinful  anger." 

The  last  clause  hits  the  point  precisely.     There  is  a  normal 

indignation,   which    is    evoked    by   exhibitions   of    meanness, 

treachery,  and  injustice,  and  which  may,  within  certiiin  limits, 

be  indulged  without  sin.     This  emotion  is  to  be  distinguished 

from  those  furious  and  unreasonable  ebullitions  of  wrath  which 

characterize  a  passionate  man. 

1  See  Gal.  iv.  8-11.  *  Sermon  viii. 

21* 


246  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Animal  Food. 

Use  unrestricted.  Restricted. 

Every  moving  tiling  tliat  Hvoth  shall  Nevertheless  these  ye  shall  not  eat,  ol 
be  meat  for  you.    Ueu.  ix.  3.  them  that  chew  the  cud,  or  of  them 

There  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,  that  divide  the  cloven  hoof.  .  .  .  They 
Kom.  xiv.  14.  ai-e  unclean  unto  you.    Deut.  xiv.  7. 

Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles, 
that  eat,  asking  no  question  for  coa- 
6cience'  sake.    1  Cor.  x.  25. 

The  first  three  passages  refer  to  men  not  under  the  Mosaic 
law.  Deut.  xiv.  was  addressed  to  the  Israelites  whom  God, 
for  wise  reasons,  wished  to  keep  a  distinct  race. 

Dr.  Davidson ^ :  "It  is  apparent  that  the  effect  of  these 
enactments  respecting  different  beasts  as  proper  for  food  or 
otherwise,  must  have  been  to  keep  the  Hebrews  apart  from 
other  nations ;  that,  as  a  distinct  people,  they  might  be  pre- 
served from  idolatry.  If  certain  articles  of  food  common 
among  other  races  were  interdicted,  the  effect  would  be  to 
break  up  social  intercourse  between  them ;  by  which  means 
the  Jews  would  not  be  in  so  much  danger  of  learning  their 
barbarous  customs,  and  falling  into  their  superstitions.  Thus 
the  separation  of  meats  into  clean  and  unclean  was  most 
salutary  to  a  monotheistic  people,  set  apart  as  the  chosen  de- 
positaries of  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  exposed  on  every  side 
to  polytheistic  tribes."  ^ 

Certain  animals  forbidden.  Same  allowed. 

And  every  creeping  thing  that  flicth  These  may  ye  eat,  of  every  flying 
is  unclean  unto  you:  they  shall  not  be  crei'j)ing  thing  that  gooth  upon  rt// lour, 
eaten.     Deut.  xiv.  19.  which   hav(>   legs   above   their  feet,  to 

l('ai>  withal  ujion  the  earth.  lUit  all 
o//<<y  (lying  crcejiing  things,  which  have 
four  feet,  shall  he  an  abomination  unto 
you.    Lev.  xi.  21,  23. 

Keil :  "  The  edible  kinds  of  locusts  are  passed  over,  in  Deut. 

»  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  258. 

-  Difference  of  nationaf  cnstoms  furnishes  tlie  solution  of  several  allej^cd 
"  discrepancies."  For  example,  the  wearing;-  of  lonfi  hair  by  men  is  allowed 
in  Num.  vi.  5,  and  repudiated  in  1  Cor.  xi.  14.  But,  then,  the  first  passaj^e 
refers  to  Jews,  the  second  is  addressed  to  Greeks  at  Corinth.  Amoiij;-  the 
former,  the  wcarin;;  of  lon;^liair  was  counted  lionorablc,  even  ornamental, 
rather  than  otherwise;  ainon^  the  latter,  it  indicated  efleminacy  and  tlio 
indul;;encc  of  unnatural  vices.  See  Stuart,  Hist,  of  Canon  of  Old  Test., 
p.  375  (lie vised  edition,  p.  851). 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  247 

xiv.,  because  it  was  not  the  iutcntion  of  Moses  to  repeat  every 
particular  of  the  earlier  laws  in  these  addresses."  In  the  rapid 
outline  given  in  Deuteronomy  it  was  not  practicable  to  notice 
unimportant  exceptions. 

Boasting. 

Tolerated.  Repudiated. 

I  labored  more  abundantly  than  they        Let  another  man  praise  thee,  and  not 
all:    yet  not  I,   but  the  grace  of  God    thine  own  mouth.     I'rov.  xxvii.  2. 
which  was  with  me.     1  Cor.  xv.  10.  Tliat  no   flesh    should    glory   in   his 

Tliat  wliich  I  speal^,  1  speak  it  not    presence.    1  Cor.  i.  29. 
after  the  l^ord,  but  as  it  were  foolishly, 
in  tliis  conlidence  of  boasting.    Seeing 
that  many  glory  after  the  tiesh,  I  will 
glory  also     2  Cor.  xi.  17,  18. 

In  nothing  am  I  boliind  the  very 
chiofest  apostles,  though  I  be  nothing. 
2  Cor.  xii.  H. 

The  limiting  clauses,  "  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God,"  "  though 
I  be  notliing,"  and  the  like,  show  that  it  was  not  self-conceit 
wliich  impelled  Paul  to  ■'  boast "  or  "  glory." 

Andrew  Fuller,'  comparing  the  texts  from  Proverbs  and 
Corinthians,  says :  "  The  motive  in  the  one  case  is  the  desire 
of  applause ;  in  the  other,  justice  to  an  injured  character  and 
to  the  gospel  which  suffered  in  his  reproaches."  Ilis  apparent 
boasting  was  in  self-vindication. 

"No  flesh  should  glory,"  —  none  should  fkid  in  the  gospel 
occasion  for  pride  and  self-exaltation.  Paul  did  not  "  glory  " 
thus  carnally. 

Paul  umnirpassed.  Humblest  of  apostles. 

For  I  suppose  I  was  not  a  whit  be-        For  1  am  the  least  of  tlie  apostles, 

hind  the  very  chiefest  apostles.    2  Cor.    that  am  not  meet  to  be  called  an  ajios- 

xi.  5.  tie,  because  I  persecuted  the  church  of 

For   ho  that  wrought  effectually  in     Cod.     1  Cor.  xv.  9. 
Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circum-        Unto  nie,  who  am  less  than  the  least 
cision,  tlie  same  was  mighty  in  me  to-    of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  I 
ward  the  Gentiles.    Oal.  ii.  8.  should  preacli  among  the  (ientiles  the 

unsearchable   riches   of  Christ.    Ei)h 
iii.  8. 

These  passages  present  the  apostle  in  two  distinct  aspects. 

In  respect  to  his  talents,  his  education,  and  his  missionary 
zeal  and  labors  he  was  unmistakably  primus  infer  pares,  first 
among  his  equals  of  the  apostolic  rank.  But  he,  unlike  the 
other  apostles,  had  been,  before  his  conversion,  a  fierce  and 

'  Works,  i.  676. 


248  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

bloody  enemy  of  Christianity,  who  "  beyond  measure  per- 
secuted the  church  of  God  and  wasted  it."  '^  In  his  deep 
sorrow,  shame,  and  humiliation  at  the  remembrance  of  his 
former  deeds  of  cruelty,  he  expresses  himself  in  the  language 
of  the  second  series  of  texts.  The  two  series  contemplate  the 
apostle  in  entirely  different  relations. 

Moses'  self-praise.  Self-praise  unworthy. 

Moreover,  the  man  Moses  iras  very        /<  is  not  pood  to  eat  much  honey:  so 
great  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  sight   f(*r  men  to  search  their  own  glory  is  not 
of  I'haraoii's  servants,  and  in  the  sight    glory.    I'rov.  xxv.  27. 
of  tlie  people.    Ex.  xi  3. 

Now  the  man  Moses  teas  very  meek, 
above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth.    IMum.  xii.  3. 

The  quotation  from  Exodus  is  the  statement  of  a  simple 
historical  fact.  It  says  nothing  of  Moses'  greatness  in  respect 
to  personal  qualifications,  but  simply  asserts  —  what  is  beyond 
the  shadow  of  doubt  —  that  his  miracles  had  produced  a  great 
effect,  and  had  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  Egyptians. 
And  tliis  statement  is  introduced  not  to  glorify  Moses,  but  to 
account  in  part  for  the  ready  compliance  of  the  Egyptians  in 
bestowing  upon  the  Israelites  the  "  jewels  "  and  "  raiment " 
which  the  latter  demanded. 

The  text  from  Numbers  has  by  some  critics  been  deemed  an 
interpolation.  Others  give  a  different  tran.slation  of  the  Hebrew 
term  rendered  "  meek."  Luther  says,  '•  harassed  or  annoyed  "  ; 
Dr.  A.  Clarke,  ''depressed";  Palfrey,  "miserable";  Dexm 
Stanley,  "  enduring,  afflicted,  heedless  of  self " ;  Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary,  "  disinterested." 

There  is,  however,  no  need  of  recourse  to  these  definitions. 
Moses,  under  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  writing 
history  "  objectively."  Hence  he  speaks  of  himself  as  freely 
us  he  would  of  any  other  person.  It  is  also  to  be  observed 
that  he  records  his  own  fai  Its  and  sins^  with  the  same  fidelity 
and  impartiality.  It  is  remarked  by  Calmet:  "As  he  praises 
himself  here  without  pride,  so  lie  will  blame  himself  elsewhere 

'  Compare  Gal.  i.  13;  Arts  ix.  1. 

«  See  Ex.  iv.  24;  Num.  xx.  12;  Deut.  i.  87. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  249 

with  humility."  The  objectionable  words  were  inserted  to 
explain  why  it  was  that  Moses  took  no  steps  in  the  case  to 
vindicate  himself,  and  why,  consequently,  the  Lord  so  promptly 
intervened. 

Coveting. 

Enjoined.  Forbidden. 

Covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts.    1  Cor.       Thou  shalt  not  covet  . .  .  anything 
xii.  31.  that  is  thy  neighbor's.    Ex.  xx.  17. 

Wherefore,  brethren,  covet  to  proph- 
esy.    1  Cor.  xiv.  39. 

"  Covet,"  hi  the  first  two  texts,  implies  an  earnest  desire  for 
that  which  is  legitimately  within  our  reach;  in  the  last,  it 
denotes  an  unlawful  cravuig  for  that  which  properly  belongs  to 
another. 

Human  effort. 

Encouraged.  Depreciated. 

So  run,  that  ye  may  obtain.  1  Cor.  So  then,  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth, 
ix.  24.  nor  of  him  that  runiietli,  but  of  God 

that  sheweth  mercy.    Rom.  ix.  16. 

The  latter  text  teaches  that  the  providing  of  salvation  was 
God's  act,  and  not  attributable  to  man's  "  willing "  nor  "  run- 
ning "  —  the  act  of  sovereign  grace,  and  not  of  the  creature. 
The  former  teaches  that  the  securing  of  this  salvation  to  the 
individual  depends  upon  his  own  exertion.  God's  mercy  in 
furnishing  redemption  and  man's  effort  in  availing  himself  of 
that  redemption  are  the  cardinal  ideas  presented  in  the  two 
texts. 

Idol-meats. 
Non-esRcntial.  To  he  avoided. 

But  meat  conimendeth  usnot  to  God:  The  tilings  which  the  (ientiles  sacri- 
for  neither  if  we  eat  are  we  the  better;  fice,  they  sacrilice  to  devils,  and  not  to 
neither  if  we  eat  not,  are  we  the  worse,  God:  and  1  would  not  that  ye  should 
1  Cor.  viii.  8.  have  fellowship  with  devils.  Ye  cannot 

What  say  1  then  ?  that  the  idol  is  any  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup 
thing,  or  that  which  is  ollered  in  sacn-  of  devils:  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of 
Uce  to  idols  is  any  thing?     1  Cor.  x.  19.     the   Lord's  table,  and  of  the  table  of 

devils.    1  Cor.  X.  20,  21. 

In  the  first  series,  Paul  concedes  that  meat  is  not  affected 
by  being  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  and  that  the  eating  of  it  is 
in  itself,  a  matter  of  indifference.  But  he  argues,  in  the  eighth 
chapter,'  that  Christians  .should  refrain  from  this  food,  because 

'  Sec  verses  9-13. 


250  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

their  participation  would  be  misconstrued  by  other  persons ; 
and  in  the  tentli  chapter/  because  the  i')articipant  shares,  to 
some  extent,  in  tlie  sin  of  idolatry. 

Andrew  Fuller^:  Your  course  is  inexpedient,  because  it 
leads  others  into  actual  idolatry ;  it  is  also  positively  sinful, 
because  it  involves  a  participation  in  idol-worship,  on  the 
general  jirinciple  that  he  who  voluntarily  associates  with  others 
in  any  act  is  a  partaker  of  that  act. 

Laughter. 

Commended.  Condemned. 

A  merry  heart  doeth  good  like  a  med-  I  said  of  laughter.  It  is  mad  :  and  of 

icine.    I'rov.  xvii.  22.  mirth,  What  doetli  it?    Eccl.  ii.  2. 

A   time  to  every  purpose  under  the  Sorrow  is  bettor  tlian  laughter :  for 

heaven.   ...    A  time  to  laugh.    Eccl.  by  the  sadness  (if  tlie  countenance  the 

iii.  1,  4.  heart  is  made  hpttcr.    The  lieart  of  tlie 

I  commended  mirth,  because  a  man  wise  is  in  tlie  house  of  mourning;  but 

hath   no  better  thing  under  the  sun,  the  heart  of  fools  is  in  the  house  of 

than  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  to  be  mirth.     Eccl.  vii.  3,  4. 

merry.     Eccl.  viii.  15.  Wo  unto  you  that  laugh  now!  for  ye 

I  will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  mourn  and  weep.    Luke  vi.  25. 
shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  man  tak- 
eth  from  you.    John  xvi.  22. 

The  first  texts  speak  approvingly  of  a  cheerful  spirit  or  a 
seasonable  and  rational  merriment ;  the  second  condemn  sense- 
less and  riotous  hilarity.  Hengstenberg :  "  Mirth  considered 
as  the  highest  good,  as  the  end  of  life,  and  the  too  great  eager- 
ness displayed  in  its  pursuit."  Not  laughter  in  the  abstract, 
but  laughter  under  certain  circumstances,  is  condemned. 

Man's  oivn  ivay. 

Must  not  he  followed.  May  be  folloioed. 

Kemember  all  the  cninmandment.s  of       Kejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth; 

the  Lord,  and  do  them;   and  that  ye    and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in  the  days 

seek  not  after  your  own  heart  and  your    of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the  ways  of 

own  eyes.    Kum.  xv.  39.  thy  heart,  and  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes. 

Eccl.  xi.  9. 

Menasseh  ben  Israel,  Aben  Ezra,  and  Kashi  take  the  second 
text  as  ironical :  ''Well,  go  your  own  way,  but  remember,"  etc. 
Ginsburg,  Hengstenberg,  and  Zockler  deem  it  an  injunction  to 
enjoy  cheerfully  the  blessings  of  life,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to 
bear  in  mind  man's  accountability  to  the  Cii\er  of  every  good 
and  pei'fect  gift. 

>  Verses  20,  21.  ■  Works,  i.  683,  684. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  251 


Moutming. 

Commended.  Discountenanced. 

Blessed  are  tlioy  that  mourn  :  for  they  Rejoice  in  the  Lord  always :  anrf  again 
shall  be  comforted.    Matt.  v.  4.  1  say,  Kejoice.    Phil.  iv.  4. 

The  "  mouraing  "  is  that  attendant  upon  true  penitence ;  the 
"  rejoicing "  results  from  the  assurance  of  salvation.  The 
sorrow  precedes,  the  joy  follows,  pardon. 

Purity. 

In  a  preceding  part  of  this  work  *  we  have  discussed  at  some 
length,  and  at  one  view,  the  alleged  discrepancies  which  would 
properly  come  mider  this  head. 

Salvation. 

God's  loork.  Man's  work. 

For  God  is  my  King  of  old,  working  VTork  out  your  own  salvation  with 
salvation  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  I's.  fear  and  trembling.  For  it  is  God  which 
Ixxiv.  12.  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 

of  his  good  pleasure.    Phil.  ii.  12,  13. 

The  last  verse  at  the  right  represents  God  as  the  prime 
mover  in  the  work  of  salvation.  Alford :  "  We  owe  hoth  the 
will  to  do  good  and  the  power  to  his  indwelling  Spirit."  As 
has  been  previously  said,  the  divine  and  human  agencies  co- 
operate to  a  certain  extent.^ 

Strong  drink. 

Use  recommended.  Discountenanced. 

And  thou  shalt  bestow  that  money  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  is 

for  whatsoever  thy  soul  lusteth  after,  raging:    and    whosoever   is    deceived 

for  oxen,  or  for  sheep,  or  for  wine,  or  thereby  is  not  wise.     I'rov.  xx.  1. 

for  strong  drink.     Dent.  xiv.  26.  Who  hath  wo?    who   hath   sorrow? 

And  the  vine  said  unto  them.  Should  who  hath  contentions?  who  hath  bah- 

I  leave  my  wine,  which  cheereth  God  bling?     who     hath     wounds    without 

and  man.    Judg.  ix.  13.  cause?  who  hath  redness  of  eyes?  They 

Wine  //<a^  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  that  tarry  long  at  the  wine;  they  that 

man.     I's.  civ.l.'j.  go  to  seek  mixed  wine.     Look  not  thou 

Give  strong  drink  unto  him  tliat  is  upon  the  wine  when  it  is  red,  when  it 

ready  to  perish,  and  wine  to  those  that  givetli   his   color  in   the  cup,  tvlteu  it 

be  of  heavy   hearts.     Let  him   drink,  moveth  itself  aright.      At  the  last  it 

and  forget  his  poverty,  and  remember  biteth  like  a  serpent,  and  stingeth  like 

his  mi.-iery  no  more.     I'rov.  xxxi.  6,  7.  an  adder.     I'rov.  xxiii.  2iMJ2. 

Drink  no  longer  water,  but  use  a  little  Whoredom  and  wine  and  new  wine 

wine  lor  thy  stomach's  sake,  and  thine  take  away  the  heart,     llos.  iv.  11. 

often  inlirniities.  ITim.  v.  23.  Nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor  ex- 
tortioners, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God     1  <  or.  vi  10. 

For  an  extended  discussion  of  this  point  the  reader  is  referred 
to  the  literature  of  the  subject.     It  should,  however,  be  said 

'  See'pp.  144-146.  "  Compare  pp.  IGC,  1G7  of  present  work. 


252  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 

that  the  general  tenor  of  the  Bible  is  clearly  and  decidedly 
against  intemperance. 

Noah's  intoxication  *  —  a  sad  blot  ujjon  a  character  otherwise 
without  reproach — is  related  merely  as  a  matter  of  history,  and 
without  comment. 

As  to  the  miracle  at  Cana,^  there  is  nothing  in  the  act  of 
our  Saviour,  nor  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  wliich  goes 
*o  sanction  drunkenness. 

Certain  authors  maintain,  with  some  plausibility,  that  in  all 
cases  where  strong  drinks  are  coupled  with  terms  of  com- 
mendation, the  original  word  properly  means  either  unfer- 
mented  wine  or  else  fruit ;  and  that  the  notices  of  fermented 
wine  are  restricted  to  passages  of  a  condemnatory  character. 
This  position,  if  tenable,  is  one  of  great  importance.  For  the 
discussion  of  this  point,  we  have  already  referred  to  the  lit- 
erature of  the  subject.^ 

In  the  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  the  words  rendered 
"  wine  "  and  "  strong  di  ink  "  may  not  imply  here  fermented  or 
intoxicating  liquors.  Even  if  such  be  their  meaning,  the 
passage  does  not  sanction  the  use  of  these  drinks  to  the  extent 
of  ebriety. 

Judges  ix.  13  ajjpears  in  the  sacred  record,  as  a  mere  fable, 
with  which  the  uninspired  speaker  embellished  his  harangue. 

The  text  in  Psalms  speaks  of  "  wine  "  which  "  maketh  glad  " 
the  heart  of  man,  and  of  "  bread  "  which  "'  strengthen  eth  "  it. 
These  two  terms  apparently  stand,  by  metonymy,  for  food  and 

>  Gen  ix.  21. 

a.Iohnii  1-11. 

^Compare  Smith's  IJib.  Diet.,  "Wine";  also,  Lees  and  Burns'  "Tem- 
perance r.ihie  Commentary"  (American  edition.  New  York,  1870).  A 
writer  in  Fairbaim's  Imperial  Bible  Diet,  says,  that  TyiTTI  properly  means 
vinta'/e  fniit,  a  solid,  insteail  of  a  liquid;  that  "iid  means  syrup  from 
various  fruits  not  intoxicatin;^  when  new.  Fuerst  takes  ■,i'i  witli  yp, 
tier.  xl.  10,  as  dcnotint?  btmches  of  f/rapes.  CasscU's  l>ible  l)ict.  says  that 
witli  the  exception  of  ",1"^,  "'-"•^,  ""'^  iicrliajis  of  X2b,  the  other  ()ri;j;inal 
terms  are  not  used  in  connection  with  diiiiiUenness.  But  see  nJinTl  in 
Ilos.  iv.  11,  above. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  253 

drink.  Hengstenberg :  "  What  appeases  hunger  and  thirst." 
It  is  not  an  intoxicating  drink  which  is  contemplated  here. 

The  passage  in  Proverbs  xxxi.  points  to  a  medicinal  use  of 
the  articles  in  question.  In  verses  4  and  5  of  the  same  chapter 
the  use  of  "  wine "  and  "  strong  drink "  is  forbidden,  for  a 
specified  reason,  to  "  kings  "  and  "  princes."  It  is  then  added  : 
"  Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish  [Zockler : 
'  who  is  on  the  point  of  perishing,  who  is  just  expiring '],  and 
wine  unto  those  that  be  of  heavy  hearts."  The  language  indi- 
cates persons  in  a  state  of  great  depression  and  exhaustion. 

That  Paul's  direction  to  Timothy  also  contemplates  a  strictly 
medical  use  of  wine  is  beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt.  The  con- 
clusion is  that  the  sacred  writers  are  not  apologists  for  drunken- 
ness, and  neither  directly  nor  indirectly  countenance  it. 

Temptation, 

Desirable.  Undesirable. 

Wv  brethren,  count  it  all  joy  when  ye  Lead  us  not  into  temptation.  Matt, 
fall  into  divers  temptations.    J  as.  i.  2.      vi.  13. 

The  word  rendered  "  temptations,"  says  Alford,  means  "  not 
only  what  we  properly  call  temptations,  but  any  kind  of 
distresses  which  happen  to  us,  from  without  or  from  within, 
which  in  God's  purpose  serve  as  trials  of  us."  Matthew  incul- 
cates ''  a  humble  self -distrust  and  shrinking  from  such  trials  in 
the  prospect " ;  James  teaches  that  when  they  do  providentially 
overtake  us,  we  are  to  rejoice  that  even  these  things  shall  work 
together  for  our  good. 

Wealth. 

Not  to  be  retained.  May  be  retained. 

If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and  sell  Charge  them  that  are  rich  in  this 
that  thou  hiist,  and  give  to  the  poor,  world,  that  they  be  not  high-minded, 
and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven,  nor  trust  in  uncertain  riches.  . . .  That 
Matt.  xix.  21.  they  do  good,  that  they  be  rich  in  good 

As  many  as  were  possessors  of  lands  works,  ready  to  distribute,  willing  to 
or  houses  sold  them,  and  brought  the    communicate.    1  Tim.  vi.  17, 18. 

f>rices  of  the  things  tliat  were  sold,  and 
aid  them  down  at  tlio  apostles'  feet.  >« 

Acts  iv.  34,  35. 

They  that  will  bo  rich  fall  into  tempta- 
tion, and  a  snare,  and  into  many  foolish 
and  hurtful  lusts,  which  drown  men  in 
destruction  and  perdition.  For  the 
love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evil. 
1  Tim.  vi.  9,  10. 


254  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

The  young  ruler's  was  an  exceptional  case.  His  "  great 
possessions  "  were  his  idol ;  love  of  money  was  his  great  sin. 
Jesus  shaped  the  injunciion  to  meet  this  special  case ;  aiming, 
as  always,  at  the  besetting  sin  of  the  individual.  The  only 
legitimate  inference  is  that  every  sin,  even  the  most  cherished, 
must  be  given  up,  if  we  would  be  disciples  of  Christ. 

Of  the  example  in  Acts,  Alford  says  that  it  was  a  voluntary 
one,  was  enforced  nowhere  by  any  rule,  and  tliat  it  prevailed 
only  at  Jerusalem.  Hackett:  "The  community  of  goods,  as  it 
existed  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  was  purely  a  voluntary 
thing,  and  not  required  by  the  apostles." 

Not  those  who  "are  rich,"  but  those  who"M't7/'  be  rich," 
those  who  make  riches  the  great  object  of  life,  are  admonished 
by  the  apostle  in  1  Tim.  vi.  The  excessive  love,  rather  than 
the  mere  possession,  of  wealth,  is  the  object  of  reprimand.  The 
Bible  forbids  neither  the  acquisition  nor  the  possession  of 
wealth,  provided  we  hold  it  as  God's  stewards,  and  use  it  for 
his  glory. 

Wisdom. 
Unprofitable.  Of  great  value. 

For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  prief :        W^isdom  excplletli   folly,    as    far  as 
and  he  that  iiicreascth  knowledge  in-    light  exci'lleth  darkness.     Ecc!.  ii.  13. 
crea-setli  .sorrow.     Keel.  i.  18,  Happy  is  the   man  that  iindeth  wis- 

As  it  happeneth  to  the  fool  so  it  hap-  dom,  aiid  the  man  that  getteth  under- 
pcneth  even  to  me:  and  wliy  was  I  then  standing.  . .  .  Slie  is  more  i)recious  than 
more  wise?     Eccl.  ii.  15.  rubie.s:  and   all  tl>e  things  thou  canst 

For  what  hath  the  wise  more  than  desire  are  not  to  he  compared  unto  her. 
the  fool?     Keel.  vi.  8.  I'rov.  iii.  1:5,  15. 

This  wisdom  descendeth  not  from  The  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first 
above,  but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish,  pure,  then  peaceable,  . . .  full  of  mercy 
Jas.  iii.  15.  and  good  fruits.    Jas.  iii.  17. 

The  term  "  wisdom  "  is  applied,  in  the  scriptures,  to  at  least 
three  things:  1.  Worldly  craft,  cunning,  or  policy;  2.  Mere 
human  knowledge  or  learning;  3.  Enlightened  piety.  The 
first  is  always  disapproved ;  the  second,  having  in  itself  no 
moral  quality,  is  not  condemned  save  wlien  it  usurps  the  place 
of  tlic  third  kind,  or  enlightened  piety.  The  latter  is  invariably 
coninicnded.  In  the  case  before  us  ethical  wi.sdom  is  contrasted 
witli  carnal  wisdom. 

'  Alfonl  hriiif^s  out  the  force  of  the  original  word,  thus:  "They  who 
wish  to  be  ricli." 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  255 


III.    DUTY  OF  MAN.—  To  his  fellaw-men. 

Adultery. 

Tolerated.  Prohibited. 

All  the  womon    children    ...   keep       Thon  shalt  not  commit  adultery.  Ex. 
alive  for  J  ourselves.    Kum.  xxxi.  18.        xx.  14. 

The  Lord  said  to  Hosea,   Go,  take        Whoremongers  and  adulterers  God 
unto  thee  a  wife  of  whoredoms,  and    will  judge.    Heb.  xiii.  4. 
children  of  whoredoms,  for  the  land 
hath  committed  great  whoredom,  de- 
parting from  the  Lokd.    Hosea  i.  2. 

Of  the  case  in  Numbers  Keil  says  all  the  females  were  put 
to  death  who  might  possibly  have  been  engaged  in  the  licentious 
worship  of  Peor/  so  that  the  Israelites  might  be  preserved 
from  contamination  by  that  abominable  idolatry.  The  young 
maidens  were  reserved  to  be  employed  as  servants,  or,  in  case 
they  became  proselytes,  to  be  married. 

With  reference  to  Hosea,  Delitzsch  takes  the  prophet's 
marriages  simply  as  "  internal  events,  i.e.  as  merely  carried  out 
in  that  inward  and  spiritual  intuition  in  which  the  word  of  God 
was  addressed  to  him."  In  this  view  concur  Bleek,^  Davidson,^ 
Hengstenberg,  Kimchi,  and  Knobel ;  the  first  of  whom  dwells 
upon  the  unsuitableness  of  the  outward  acts  to  make  the 
desired  moral  impression,  while  the  last  pronounces  these  acts 
peculiarly  inconsistent  with  a  character  so  severely  moral  as 
that  of  Hosea.  Moreover,  the  word  "  whoredom,"  in  the  first 
part  of  the  verse  may  mean,  as  it  certainly  does  in  the  last 
part,  simply  spiritual  whoredom,  or  idolatry.* 

Assassination. 

Sanctioned.  Forbidden. 

Ehud  said.  I  have  a  message  from        'i'hou  shalt  not  kill.    Ex.  xx.  13 
God  unto  thee.    And  lie  aro.'ie  out  of       If  a  man  come  presumptuously  upon 
his  seat.     And  Khud  put  forth  his  left    his  neiglibor   to  slay  him  witli   guile; 
hand,  and  took  the  dagger,  .  .  .   and    thou  slialt  take  him  from  mine  altar, 
thrust  it  into  his  belly.  .  .  .  And  Ehud    that  he  may  die.    Ex.  x.vi.  14. 
escaped.    Judg.  iii.  20,  21.  26. 

Then  Jael.  Hebcr's  wife,  took  a  nail 
of  the  tent,  and  took  a  hammer  in  her 
hand,  and  went  softly  unto  him,  and 
srante  the  nail  into  his  temple-:,  and 
fastened  it  into  tin-  gmuud:  for  ho  was 
fiust  asleep,  and  weary.  So  he  died. 
Judg.  iv   21. 

'  Sec  Num.  xxv.  1-3.  *  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  124. 

^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  iii.  -31.  *  Compare  p.  79,  present  work. 


256  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 

The  cases  of  Ehud  and  Jael  are  7"ecorded  without  comment, 
simply  as  matters  of  history.  It  does  not  appear  that  God 
sanctioned  their  acts,  although  he  overruled  them  for  the 
welfare  of  his  jieople.  Keil  admonishes  us  against  supposing 
that  Ehud  acted  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  also 
that,  though  he  actually  delivered  Israel,  there  is  no  warrant  for 
assuming  that  the  means  he  selected  were  either  commanded 
or  approved  by  Jehovah. 

The  cases  of  Joab  and  Shimei  ^  are  sometimes  adduced  as 
examples  of  the  sanction  of  assassination.  The  former  was  a 
"  man  of  blood,"  a  deliberate  murderer.  When  the  reasons  of 
state,  on  account  of  which  his  punishment  had  been  deferred, 
ceased  to  exist,  that  punishment  was  justly  inflicted.  Shimei 
was  guilty  of  aggravated  treason  and  rebellion.  Being  re- 
prieved upon  a  certain  condition,  he  vt'ilfully  violated  that 
condition,  and  met  the  consequences  of  his  temerity. 

Assassination  is  nowhere  sanctioned  in  the  Bible. 

Avenging  of  Mood. 

Provided  for.  Virtually  prohibited. 

The  rcvenfrcr  of  blood  himself  shall        Thou  shalt  not  kill.    Deut.  v.  17. 
slay  the  miinlorer:  when   he  incotefh 
him,  he  shall  slay  him.  ^um.  x.\.xv.  19. 

The  practice  of  blood-revenge,  being  one  of  long  standing, 
and  founded  upon  "  an  imaginary  sense  of  honor,"  ^  was  tolerated 
by  Moses ;  but  he  took  measures  to  prevent  its  abuse. 

According  to  the  original  custom,  as  Burckhardt'  says, ''  the 
right  of  blood-revenge  is  never  lost ;  it  descends,  on  both  sides, 
to  the  latest  generation."  Moses  restricted  the  avenging  of  blood 
to  the  nearest  male  relative  of  the  deceased,  and  to  the  actual 
offender.    These  two,  and  no  more,  were  concerned  in  the  affair. 

Then,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  such  competent  witnesses  as 
Burckhardt,  Mr.  Layard,*  and  Prof.  Palmer  *  bear  unequivocal 

'  1  Kinj^s  ii.  5-9. 

^  Micliaelis,  Com.  on  Mosaic  Laws,  i.  15,  IG. 

"  Quoted  liy  Macilonald,  Introil.  to  I'out.  ii.  ."W."},  824. 

*  Nineveh  ami  iJahylon,  ji,  '2(>0  (New  Yoflc  edition). 

''  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  75  (Harpers'  edition). 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  257 

testimony  to  the  salutary  influence  of  the  custom  upon  the  tribes 
among  whom  it  obtains.  The  latter  traveller  says :  "  Thanks 
to  the  terrible  rigor  of  the  '  vendetta,'  or  blood-feud,  homicide 
is  far  rarer  in  the  desert  than  in  civUized  lands."  The  "  killing  " 
forbidden  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  crime  of  murder ;  the  "blood- 
revenge  "  of  Nmnbers  is  the  recognized  punishment  of  that  crime. 

Baptis7n. 

Enjoined.  Neglected. 

Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  I  thank  God  that  1  baptized  none  of 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gaius.  . .  .  For 
Fattier,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
Ghost.    Matt,  xxviii.  19.  preach  the  gospel.    1  Cor.  i.  14.  17. 

Obviously,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  so  much  to  baptize,  as  to 
preach  the  gospel."  Paul  did  not  neglect  or  undervalue  bap- 
tism, but  gave  liimself  to  the  veork  of  teaching,  leaving  his 
associates  to  administer  baptism. 

Burdens. 

Must  hear  othera'  burdens.  Bear  our  own  burdens. 

Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  For  every  man  shall  bear  his  own 
80  fultil  the  law  of  Christ.    Gal.  vi.  2.        burden.    Gal.  vi.  5. 

The  original  word  for  "  burden  "  is  not  the  same  in  the  two 
cases.     The  different  sense  is  indicated  in  accurate  versions. 

The  first  text  means,  "  Be  sympathetic  and  helpful  to  each 
other  in  the  midst  of  infirmities  and  sorrows " ;  the  second, 
"  Every  man  must  bear  his  own  responsibiUty,  under  the 
Divine  government." 

Calling  men  ** Father." 

Forbidden.  Exemplified. 

And  call  nomunyourfather  upon  the  And  Elisha  saw  it,  and  he  cried.  My 

earth :  for  one  is  your  Father,  which  is  father,  my  father.    2  Kings  ii.  12. 

in  heaven.    Neitlier  bo  ye  called  mas-  Yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers:  for 

ters ;  for  one  is  your  Master,  eye»i  Christ,  in  Christ  Jesus   I   have   begotten  you 

Matt,  xxiii.  9,  10.  through  the  gospel.    1  Cor.  iv.  15. 

The  texts  at  the  left  simply  forbid  us  to  take  any  man  as  an 
infallihle  guide.  We  are  to  pay  to  no  human  being  the 
homage  and  obedience  which  rightfully  belong  to  Christ. 

Alford :  "  The  prohibition  is  against  loving,  and,  hi  any  re 
ligious  matter,  using  such  titles,  signifying  dominion  over  the 
faith  of  others." 

22* 


2o8  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 


Capital  punishment. 

Murderer  executed.  Spared. 

Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  A  fugitive  and  a  vagabond  sbalt  ttaon 
shall  his  blood  be  shed.    Gen.  ix.  6.  bo  in  the  earth.    And  Cain  said  unto 

llie  Lord,  51y  punislimcnt  is  greater 
than  1  can  bear.    Clen.  iv.  12,  13. 

By  some  unaccountable  freak  of  exegesis,  a  well-known 
ci'jtic  makes  the  first  text  the  prohibition  of  capital  ptinishment. 
Instead,  it  is  a  most  explicit  command,  sanctioning  it. 

The  case  of  Cain  occurred  some  fifteen  hundred  years  before 
this  command  was  given  to  Noah. 

Captives. 

To  be  spared.  Put  to  death. 

All  the  people  that  is  found  therein.  But  of  the  cities  of  these  people, 
shall  be  tributaries  unto  thee,  and  they  which  the  Loud  thy  God  doth  give 
shall  serve  thee. . . .  Thus  shall  thou  do  thee /or  an  inheritance,  thou  shalt  save 
unto  all  the  cities  which  are  very  tar  off  alive  nothing  that  breatheth :  . . .  That 
from  thee,  which  are  not  of  the  cities  they  teach  you  not  to  do  alter  all  tlieir 
of  these  nations.    Deut.  xx.  11,  15.  abominations,  which  they  have  done 

unto  their  gods;  so  should  ye  sin  against 
the  Loud  your  God.    Deut.  xx.  16, 18. 

The  general  rule  was  to  make  captives ;  the  exception  was 
in  the  case  of  the  "  seven  nations "  of  Canaan,  to  whom,  on 
account  of  their  "  abominations,"  no  quarter  was  to  be  given.* 

Chastity  tested. 

By  one  method.  A  different  method. 

And  the  Lonn  spake  unto  Moses,  If  any  man  take  a  wife,  and  go  in 
saying.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Is-  unto  her,  and  hate  her,  and  give  occa« 
rael,  ...If  any  man's  wife  go  aside,  sionsof  speech  against  her, ...  and  say, 
and  commit  a  trespass  against  him,  etc.  I  took  this  woman,  and  when  1  came 
Kum.  V.  11-31.  to  her,  I  found   her  not  a  maid,  etc. 

Deut.  xxiL  13-21. 

A  late  writer  says  that,  in  one  case,  "  great  latitude  is  afforded 
to  the  suspicious  husband,  while  the  woman's  protection  against 
him  is  only  a  superstitious  appeal  to  Jehovah ;  in  the  other, 
a  judicial-investigation  is  instituted,  giving  the  wife  a  more 
reasonable  chance  of  justice." 

But  the  two  cases  are  quite  different.  The  first  text  refers 
to  unchastity  of  which  the  woman  was  supposed  to  have  been 
guilty  after  marriage ;  the  other,  to  similar  misconduct  of  hers 

'  See  further  under  "  Enemies,  —  treatment." 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  259 

before  that  event.  Hence  different  modes  of  investigation  were 
adopted.  In  the  first  case  the  way  prescribed  —  the  only  way 
to  arrive  at  the  truth  in  the  matter  —  was,  as  Keil  says,  "  to 
let  the  thing  be  decided  by  the  verdict  of  God  himself."  In 
the  other  case,  this  would  not  be  true. 

Christians  hearing  weapons. 

Permitted.  Forbidden. 

But  now,  he  that  hath  a  purse,  let  Put  up  acrain  thy  sword  into  his 
him  take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip:  and  place:  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword, 
he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  liim  sell  his  shall  perish  with  the  sword.  Matt, 
garment,  and  buy  one.    Luke  xxii.  36.    xxvi.  52. 

Some  critics  take  the  Greek  word  '  machaira '  as  denoting,  in 
the  first  text,  not  a  "  sword,"  but  a  "  knife."  Unquestionably, 
the  word  occasionally  has  this  meaning  in  classical  Greek  and 
in  the  Septuagint.^  Tliis  is  a  possible,  but  not  probable, 
interpretation. 

The  first  text  may  be  only  another  way  of  saying,  "  You 
must  henceforth  use  such  precautions,  and  make  such  provision 
for  your  needs,  as  men  generally  do."  Wordsworth :  "  A  pro- 
verbial expression,  intimating  that  they  would  now  be  reduced 
to  a  condition  in  which  the  men  of  this  world  resort  to  such 
means  of  defence.  Alford :  "  The  saying  is  both  a  description 
to  them  of  their  altered  situation  with  reference  to  the  world 
without,  and  a  declaration  that  self-defence  and  self-provision 
would  henceforward  be  necessary."  Similarly  Oosterzee,  and 
many  others. 

The  second  quotation  may  have  been  a  warning  to  Peter 
against  a  seditious  or  rebellious  use  of  the  sword  against  riders. 
Or  it  may  have  been  a  dissuasive  against  his  attempting  to 
avenge  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon  Jesus,  coupled  with  the 
assurance  that  the  latter's  persecutors  should  speedily  perish  — 
as  they  did,  in  the  destruction  of  their  city.     That  is,  rebellion 

'  Lidilell  and  Scott  ixivc,  as  one  definition,  a  knife  for  surfrical,  sacrificial, 
and  other  purposes.  In  Gen.  xxii.  G,  10;  Judges  xix.  29,  such  a  knife  is 
clearly  intended.  In  the  last  instance,  however,  Tiscbendorf  adopts  a 
different  readinji. 


260  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

against  regularly  constituted  authorities,  together  with  private, 
extra-judicial  revenge,  may  be  all  that  is  contemplated  and 
prohibited  here. 

Circu7ncision, 

Instituted.  Discarded. 

This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  Is  any  called  in  uncircumcision?  let 
keep,  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  him  not  be  circumcised.  1  Cor.  vii.  18. 
seed  after  thee :  Every  man-child  among  Behold,  I  Paul,  say  unto  you,  that  if 
you  shall  be  circumcised,  (jen.  xvii.  10.    ye  bo  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 

And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  and    you  nothing.    Gal.  v.  2 
Aaron,   This  is   the   ordinance   of  the 
passover:  .. .  No  uncircumcised  person 
shall  eat  thereof.    Ex.  xii.  43,  48. 

The  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law,  among  which 
was  circumcision,  were  intended  to  serve  a  temporary  purpose. 
When  Christ  came  the  Mosaic  ritual  ceased  to  have  any  binding 
force.     It  had  fulfilled  the  designed  end. 

The  first  passages  were  addressed  to  Abraham  and  his  seed. 

The  second  series  was  written  after  the  rite  of  circumcision  had 

been  set  aside  by  Divine  authority. 

Not  to  be  omitted.  Neglected  for  forty  years. 

And  the  uncircumcised  man-child, . . .  All  the  people  that  were  born  in  the 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  ofl"  from  his  peo-  wilderness  by  the  way  as  they  came 
pie;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant,  forth  out  of  Egypt,  ...  them  Joshua 
CJen.  xvii.  14.  circumcised:   for  they  were  uncircum- 

cised) because  they   had  not  circum- 
cised them  by  the  way.     Josh.  v.  5,  7. 

IVIr.  Perowne,  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  maintains  that 
"  the  nation,  while  bearing  the  punishment  of  disobedience  in 
its  forty  years'  wandering,  was  regarded  as  under  a  temporary 
rejection  by  God,  and  was  therefore  prohibited  from  using  the 
sign  of  the  covenant." 

This  explanation  is  adopted  by  Calvin,  Keil,  and  Tlengsten- 
berg,'  and  is  probably  the  true  one.  On  the  same  principle 
the  parallel  omission  of  the  passover  is  to  be  explained. 

Profitable.  Useless. 

A  certain  disciple  was  there,  named  Neither  Titus,  who  was  with  me, 
Timotheus.  .  .  .  llim  would  I'aul  have  being  a  (Jreek,  was  compelled  to  be 
to  go  forth  with  him;  and  took  and  circumcised.  And  that  because  of  false 
circumcised  him,  because  of  the  Jews  brethren  unawares  brought  in,  who 
wliich  were  in  those  (juarters.  Acts  came  in  privily  tn  s|)v  out  ourlit)erty 
Xvi.  1,  8.  which   Wf  li.ive   in   <  hrist  Jesus,   that 

they   might    bring    us    into    bondage. 

Gal.  ii.  3,  4. 

*  On  Genuineness  of  Pentateuch,  ii.  13-15. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  261 

Conybeare :  The  two  cases  were  entirely  different.  In  the 
latter,  there  was  an  attempt  to  enforce  circumcision  as  neces- 
sary to  salvation ;  in  the  former,  it  was  performed  as  a  volun- 
tary act,  and  simply  on  prudential  grounds. 

Similarly  Ilackett  and  Alford.  The  principle  inA^olved  is 
that  we  may  sometimes  make  concessions  to  expediency  which 
it  would  be  wrong  to  make  to  arbitrary  authority  seeking  to 
tyrannize  over  the  conscience. 

Conitnutation  for  murder. 

Not  allowed.  Permitted. 

Ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  for  the       If  the  ox  were  wont  to  push  with  his 

life  of  a  murderer,  which  is  guilty  of    horn  iu  time  past,  and  it  hath  been  tes- 

death:  but  he  shall  be  surely  put  to    tified  to  his  owner,  and  he  hath  not 

death.    Kum.  xxxv.  31.  kept  him  in,  but  that  he  hath  killed  a 

man  or  a  woman ;  the  ox  shall  be 
stoned,  and  his  owner  also  shall  be  put 
to  death.  If  there  be  laid  on  him  a  sum 
of  money,  then  he  shall  give  for  the 
ransom  of  his  life  whatsoever  is  laid 
upon  him.    Ex.  xxi.  29,  30. 

In  the  case  of  wilful  murder,  as  Abarbanel  and  Aben  Ezra 
say,  absolutely  no  commutation  of  the  death-jjenalty  was 
allowed.  But  tlie  second  quotation  does  not  refer  to  a  case  of 
"murder,"  properly  so  called.  The  element  of  malice  was 
wanting.  Gross  and  criminal  carelessness,  although  resulting 
in  the  death  of  a  human  bemg,  was  yet  less  heinous  than 
deliberate  murder.  Hence  the  judges  might,  if  they  saw  fit, 
punish  the  offender  by  a  heavy  fine,  instead  of  death. 

This  is,  substantiidly,  Keil's  opinion. 

Contention  and  strife. 

Enjoined.  Forbidden. 

Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate.  A  fool's  lips  enter  into  contention. 

Luke  xiii   24.  Prov.  xviii.  6. 

Yea,  so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  Charging  them  before  the  Lord  that 

gospel.  ...  Aow  1  beseech  you,  breth-  they  strive  not  about  words  to  no  profit. 

ren,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in  ...  The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not 

|/oMr  prayers  to  God  for  me.    liom.  xv.  strive.    2  Tim.  ii.  14,  24. 

20,  30.  For  where  envying  and  strife  is,  there 

It  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  is  confusion  and  every  evil  work.    Jas. 

you,  and  exhort  you  that  ye  should  iii.  10. 
earnestly  contend  for  the  faith.  JudeS. 

These  are  interesting  examples  of  the  use  of  the  same  word 
in  widely  different  senses.     In  the  first  series   the  words  in 


262  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

question  imply  merely  earnest  effort ;  in  the  second,  quarrel- 
some collision.  We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  citation  from 
Luke  would  be  properly  rendered,  "  Agonize  to  enter  in  at  the 
strait  gate." 

Converting  men. 

Man  converts  his  fellow.  Converts  himself. 

In  doinj;  this  thou  shalt  both  save  Lost  tliey  see  with  their  eyes,  and 
tliyself,  aud  tliem  that  hoar  tliec.  1  Tim.  hear  wiiii  tlieir  ears,  and  miderstand 
iv.  li).  with  their  lieart,  and  couvert,  and  be 

Jf  any  of  you  do  err  from  the  trutli,    healed.    Isa.  vi.  10. 
and  one  convert  liim;  i-et  him  know, 
tliat  he  which   convertetli   the  sinner 
from  tlio  error  of  his  way  sliall  save  a 
soul  from  deatli.     Jas.  v.  19,  20. 

The  first  text  brings  to  view  the  influence  of  another  in 
causing  a  man  to  turn ;  the  second,  the  man's  own  act  in 
turning  from  the  error  of  his  way.     Here  is  no  contradiction. 

Distrust. 

Enjoined.  Precluded. 

Take  ye  heed  every  one  of  his  neifih-  Bearoth  all  things,  believeth  all 
bor,  and  trust  yc  not  in  any  brother:  tliinp:s,  liopeth  all  thinjrs,  endureth  all 
for  every  brother  will  utterly  supplant,  thinjis.  Charity  never  faileth.  1  Uor. 
Jer,  ix.  4.  xiii.  7,  8. 

Cursed  be  the  man  that  trusteth  in 
man.  and  maketh  il<'sh  liis  arm,  and 
whose  heart  departeth  from  the  Lord. 
J(T.  xvii.  5. 

Trust  ye  not  in  a  friend,  put  ye  not 
conlidence  in  a  guide.    Micali  vii.  5. 

The  first  and  last  texts  at  the  left  imply  a  state  of  the  "most 
wretched  perfidiousness,  anarchy,  and  .confusion,  in  which  tlie 
most  intimate  could  have  no  coufidence  in  each  other,  and  the 
closest  ties  of  relationship  were  violated  and  contemned."  These 
two  texts  arc  not  commands,  but  advice  —  equivalent  to  saying, 
"  Such  is  the  state  of  public  morals  that  if  you  trust  any  man 
you  will  be  deceived  and  betrayed." 

Jer.  xvii.  5  simply  denounces  that  undue  "  trust  in  man " 
which  causes  one  to  '•  depart  from  the  Lord."  None  of  these 
passages  countenance  uncliaritable  suspicion  and  distrust. 

The  first  three  texts  grapliically  depict  the  workings  and 
results  of  human  depravity  ;  the  last  cittition  sets  forth  the  work- 
ings of  Christian  love.  The  demoralizing  effects  of  sin  are 
contrasted  with  the  loving,  ti-usting  pui-ity  arising  from  the  gospel 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  263 


Divorce. 

Largely  allowed.  Restricted. 

And  seest  amonj;  the  captives  a  beau-  Let  none  deal  treacherously  against 

tiful  woman,  audliast  a  desire  unto  her,  the  wife  of  his  youth.    For  the  Lord, 

that  thou   wouldest  have  her  to   thy  the  God  of  Israel,  saith,  that  he  hatetli 

Wilis.    Then  thou  shalt  bring  )ier  homo  putting  away.    Mai.  ii.  15,  Itj. 

to  thy  house,  .  .  .  And  after  that,  thou  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 

Bhalt  go  in  unto  Iier,  and  be  her  hus-  saving  for  the    cause    of   tbrnication, 

band,  and  she  shall  be  thy  wife.    And  causeth  her  to  commit  adultery ;  and 

it  shall  be,  if  thou  have  no  deliglit  in  whosoever   shall    marry    her    that   is 

her,  then  thou  shalt  let  her  go  whither  divorced  committeth  adultery.     Matt, 

she  will.    Deut.  xxi.  11-14.  v.  32. 

When,  a  man  hath  taken  a  wife,  and  Why  did  Moses  then  command  to 

married  her,  and  it  come  to  pass  that  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to 

she  tind  no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because  put  her  away?    He  saith  unto  them, 

lie  hath  found  some  uncleanness  in  her;  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  your 

then  let  him  write  her  a  bill  of  divorce-  liearts,  suHcred  you  to  put  away  your 

ment,  and  give  i<  in  her  hand,  and  send  wives:  but  from  the  beginning  it  was 

lier  out  of  his  house.     And  when  she  not  so.     Matt.  xix.  7,  8. 

is  departed  out  of  his  liouse,  slie  may  Whosoever  puttetli  away  his  wife, 

go  and  be  another  man's  wife.    Deut.  and     marrieth    another,    committeth 

xxiv.  1,  2.  adultery;  and  whosoever  marrieth  her 

that  is  put  away  from  Itir  husband, 
committeth  adultery.    Luke  xvi.  18. 

Between  these  two  series  of  announcements  a  period  of  some 
f  fteen  hundred  years  intervened. 

God,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  with  a  view 
tc  prevent  greater  evils,  allowed  a  limited  freedom  of  divorce. 
Yet  this  "  putting  away,"'  being  opposed  to  the  original,  divine 
idea  of  marriage,  was  suffered  solely  on  account  of  the  hardness 
of  men's  hearts,  and  in  comparatively  rude  and  unenlightened 
times.  We  see  here  the  wisdom  of  God  in  adapting  his  statutes 
and  requirements  to  man's  knowledge  and  position  in  the  scale 
of  civilization. 

Besides,  as  Dr.  Ginsburg  ^  has  observed,  "  the  Mosaic  law 
does  not  institute  divorce,  but,  as  in  other  matters,  recognizes 
and  most  humanely  regulates  the  prevailing  patriarchal  practice." 
The  law,  moreover,  is  shaped  with  a  view  to  mitigate  the  evils 
of  the  practice,  and  ultimately  to  restrict  it  within  the  proper 
limits.  At  our  Saviour's  coming,  he,  addressing  himself  to  a 
more  enlightened  age,  set  the  matter  in  the  normal  light, 
allowing  divorce  but  for  one  cause.''' 

'  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  Hi.  82. 

-  Sec,  furtlicr,  Professor  Ilovcy,  "  Scviptiiral  Doctrine  of  Divorce " 
(Boston,  18GG).  President  Woolsey,  "New  Englander"  (January,  April, 
and  July,  18tj7). 


264  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 


Enemies  f  —  treatment. 

Ammonites  tortured.  Cruelty  prohibited. 

And  he  brought  forth  the  people  that  But  love  ye  your  enemies,  and  do 

trere  therein,  and  put  ^^M)i  under  saws  good,  and    lend,   hoping   for  nothing 

and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and  under  again;  and  your  reward  shall  be  great, 

axes    of   iron,   and    made    them    pass  and  ye  shall   be  the  children  of  the 

through  the  brick-kiln:  and  thus  did  Highest:  for  he  is  kind  unto  the  un- 

he  unto  all  the  cities  of  the  children  of  thankful  and  to  the  evil.    Be  ye  there- 

Ammon.    2Sam.  xii.Sl.  fore  merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is 

And  he  brought  out  the  people  that  merciful.    Jfcake  vi.  35,  86. 
were  in  it,  and  cut  them  with  saws,  and 
with  harrows  of  iron,  and  with  axes. 
1  Chron.  xx.  3. 

If  our  version  of  the  text  fi-om  Chronicles  is  correct,  David 
merely  punished  the  Ammonites  for  the  terrible  cruelties  which 
at  a  previous  period  his  fellow-countrymen  had  suffered  at  their 
hands.^  Henderson,  referring  to  these  cruelties,  says :  "  The 
object  of  the  Ammonites  was  to  effect  an  utter  extermination 
of  the  Israelites  inhabiting  the  mountainous  regions  of  Gilead, 
in  order  that  they  might  extend  their  own  territory  in  that 
direction." 

According  to  a  Jewish  tradition,  David  slew  the  Moabites,* 
because  they  had  treacherously  murdered  his  parents  who  had 
been  confided  to  their  care.^  Wahner,  however,  gives  three 
explanations  "•  according  to  which  none  of  the  vanquished 
Moabitcs  were  put  to  death."  * 

Tlie  probability  is  that  our  version  of  both  texts  of  the  first 
series,  as  well  as  the  original  of  the  second  of  those  texts,  is 
incorrect.  Dr.  Davidson  says :  "  According  to  the  present 
reading  of  Samuel,  the  meaning  could  not  be  he  put  them  to. 
Nor  could  it  be  he  put  them  under,  but  only  he  put  them  among 
or  between." 

Chandler,*  Dantz,  and  others,  take  the  meaning  to  be  that 
David  enslaved  the  Ammonites,  putting  them  to  servile  labor, 
in  the  midst  of  suitable  implements,  —  saws,  harrows,  axes,  and 
the  like.  The  word  "vayysisar,"  "he  sawed,"  in  Chronicles, 
may  be  a  mere  copyist's  blunder  for  "  vayyiisem,"  "  he  put,"  as 

'  Comp.  1  Sam.  xi.'2;  Amos  i.  13.    ^  2  Sam.  viii.  2 

» 1  Sam.  xxii.  3,  4.  *  See  Michacli.s,  Mos.  Laws,  i.  834, 835. 

'  Life  of  David,  ii.  227-238  (Oxford,  1853). 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  265 

in  Samuel.  The  latter  word  is  found  in  seven  of  the  mss.  col- 
lated by  Dr.  Kennicott.  The  close  resemblance  of  the  two 
words,  especially  if  the  final  letter,  Mem,  were  imperfectly 
formed,  accounts  for  the  error  of  the  transcriber. 

We,  therefore,  submit  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  David 
put  the  Ammonites  to  the  torture.  The  meaning  may  be  that, 
he  put  them  to  menial  service,  of  the  lowest  and  most  laborious 
kind.  If  he  killed  any,  it  may  have  been,  as  KeU  suggests, 
simply  the  "  fighting  men  that  were  taken  prisoners." 

Finally,  these  passages  are  mere  history,  and  the  sacred  writer 

makes  himself  responsible  for  nothing  more  in  the  case  than 

the  simple  accuracy  of  the  narrative. 

BaaFs  jirophets  slain.  Conciliatory  measures  enjoined. 

And  Elijah  said  unto  them,  Take  the       In  meekness  instructing  those  that 
prophets  of  Baal;  let  not  one  of  them    oppose  themselves.    2 Tim.  ii.  25. 
escape.     And    they    took    them;    and 
Elijah  brought  them  down  to  the  brook 
Klshon,  and  slew  them  there.    1  Kings 
xviii.  40. 

These  "  prophets  "  were  engaged  in  promoting  treason  and 
rebellion  against  the  theocracy.  Leniency  shown  to  them, 
under  these  circumstances,  would  be  nothing  less  than  cruelty 
and  treachery  toward  the  highest  welfare  of  the  nation. 

KeU :  "  To  infer  from  this  act  of  Elijah  the  right  to  uistitute 
a  bloody  persecution  of  heretics,  would  not  only  indicate  a  com- 
plete oversight  of  the  difference  between  heathen  idolaters  and 
Christian  heretics,  but  the  same  reprehensible  confounding  of 
the  evangelical  standpoint  of  the  New  Testament  with  the 
legal  standpoint  of  the  Old,  which  Christ  condemned  in  his  own 
disciples,  in  Luke  ix.  55,  56." 

Rawlinson  :  *'  Elijah's  act  is  to  be  justified  by  the  express 

command  of  the  law,  that  idolatrous  Israelites  were  to  be  put 

to  death ;  and  by  the  right  of  a  prophet  under  the  theocracy  to 

step  in  and  execute  the  law  when  the  king  faUcd  in  his  duty." 

Canaanites  extirpated.  Killing  forbidden. 

Hut  of  the  cities  of  these    people,        Thou  shalt  not  kill.    Deut.  v.  17. 
which  the    Lokd   thy   Ciod   doth   give 
thco/oj-  an  inlioiifiince.  thou  shalt  save 
alive  nothing  that  hreatheth  :  but  thou 
Bhalt  utterly  destroy  them;  namely,  the 

23 


266  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Canaanites  extirpated.  Killing  forbidden. 

Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  the  Canaan- 
itps,  and  the  I'erizzites,  the  Hivites,  and 
the  Jebiisites;  as  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  commanded  thee:  that  they  teach 
you  not  to  do  after  all  their  abomina- 
tions, which  they  have  done  unto  their 
pods ;  so  sliould  ye  sin  against  the  Lord 
your  God.    Deut.  xx.  16-18. 

The  precept  in  Deut.  v.  does  not  prohibit  the  punishment 
of  crime.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  extraordinary  severity  was 
enjoined  only  in  the  cases  above  specified.  To  other  nations 
the  Israelites  might  propose  conditions  of  peace,  and  enter  into 
leagues  with  them. 

The  reasons  for  tliis  unexampled  severity  are  the  following : 

1.  7%e  excessive  wickedness  of  these  seven  tribes,  the  hor- 
rible "  abominations  "  of  which  they  were  guilty.  They  burned 
their  children  in  honor  of  their  gods  ;  ^  they  practised  sodomy, 
bestiality,  and  all  loathsome  vices.-  Such  was  their  unmitigated 
depravity,  that  the  land  is  represented  as  "•  vomiting  out  her 
inhabitants,"  and  "  spewing  them  forth,"  as  the  stomach  dis- 
gorges a  deadly  poison.^  On  account  of  their  loathsome  vile- 
ness  God  cut  them  off  by  the  sword  of  the  Israelites. 

2.  Their  contaminating  example.  This  is  the  reason  assigned 
in  the  text  above  quoted.  For  the  same  reason,  "  covenants  " 
and  •'  marriages  "  between  the  Israelites  and  these  seven  tribes 
were  strictly  prohibited.*  The  disastrous  consequences  of  the 
intercourse  of  the  Israelites  with  Moab  evince  the  wisdom  of 
this  prohilntion."  It  was  utterly  impossible  to  live  near  these 
degraded  idolaters  without  being  dedled  by  the  association. 

Tliis  fact  indicates  to  us  the  reason  why  the  Israelites  were 
instructed  to  "  save  alive  nothimj  that  hreatheth."  Absolute 
extermination  of  tljc  idolaters  was  the  only  safeguard  of  the 
Hebrews.  Any  of  the  former  who  sliould  be  spared,  would, 
owing  to  their  perverse  proclivities,  jjrove  a  most  undesirable 
and  intractable  element  in  the  Hebrew  theocracy."  It  was 
better  for  all  ooncenic^d,  that  these  idolatrous  tribes  should  be 

'  Lev.  xviii.  '21.        -  Lev.  xviii.  22-21;  xx.  2.3.     ■'  Lev.  xviii.  23,  28. 

*  Dcut.  vii.  1-4.        *■  Num.  xxv.  1-3.  *  .Iii<Hies  ii.  1-3;  iii.  1-7. 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES,  267 

laid  under  the  ban  ;  that  is,  altogether  exterminated,  that  they 
might  not  teach  the  Israelites  their  abominations  and  sins. 

As  to  the  reflex  influence,  upon  the  Hebrews  themselves,  of 
their  extermination  of  the  Canaanites,  Prof.  Norton^  bluntly 
observes :  ''  There  is  no  good  moral  discipline  in  the  butchery 
of  ■women  and  infants.  It  is  not  thus  that  men  are  to  be 
formed  to  the  service  of  God."     To  this,  we  may  reply : 

1.  The  positive  and  explicit  command  of  Jehovah  entirely 
changed  the  aspect  of  the  case,  and  invested  the  Israelites,  wliile 
executing  this  command  with  a  solemn  ofhcial  responsibility  as 
the  instruments  of  divine  justice. 

2.  The  execution  of  this  command  may  have  been,  in  that 
comparatively  rude  and  unenlightened  age,  the  most  effectual 
means  of  impressing  upon  the  Hebrews  the  "  exceeding  sinful- 
ness "  of  sin,  together  with  God's  abhorrence  ^  of  the  same, 
especially,  in  the  form  of  "  idolatry."  As  the  Hebrews  looked 
forth  upon  the  devastated  habitations,  the  slain  animals,  the 
dead  bodies  of  the  Canaanites,  they  could  not  but  hear  the 
solemn  warning,  "  These  are  the  consequences  of  sin.  Behold 
how  Jehovah  hates  iniquity." 

This  view  of  the  case  is  vigorously  presented  by  Dr.  Fair- 
bairn,^  in  words  like  the  following :  "  What  could  be  conceived 
so  tlioroughly  fitted  to  im2:)lant  in  their  hearts  an  abiding  con- 
viction of  the  evil  of  idolatry  and  its  foid  abominations  —  to 
convert  their  abhorrence  of  these  into  a  national,  permanent 
characteristic,  as  their  being  obliged  to  enter  on  their  settled 
inheritance  by  a  terrible  infliction  of  judgment  upon  its  former 
occupants  for  polluting  it  with  such  enormities?  Thus  the 
very  foundations  of  their  national  existence  raised  a  solemn 
warning  against  defection  from  the  pure  worship  of  God ;  and 
the  visitation  of  divine  wrath  against  the  ungotUiness  of  men 
accomplished  by  their  own  hands,  and  interwoven  with  the 
records  of  their  history  at  its  most  eventful  period,  stood  as  a 

'  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ii.  p.  cxxx.  ^  Lev.  xx.  23. 

•'  Typology,  ii.  465-471. 


268  DISCREPANCIES    OP   THE   BIBLE. 

perpetual  witness  against  them,  if  they  should  ever  turn  aside 
to  folly.  Happy  had  it  been  for  them,  if  they  had  been  as 
careful  to  remember  the  lesson,  as  God  was  to  have  it  suitably 
impressed  upon  their  minds." 

The  language  in  which  ]Mr.  Carlyle  ^  characterizes  the  severe 
and  bloody  measures  employed  by  Cromwell  against  the  Irish 
insurgents,  may  be  applied  to  the  Israelites  in  their  executing 
the  divine  commission  against  the  Canaanites,  —  "An  armed 
soldier,  solemnly  conscious  to  himself  that  he  is  the  soldier  of 
God,  the  Just,  —  a  consciousness  which  it  well  beseems  all 
soldiers  and  all  men  to  have  always,  —  armed  soldier,  terrible 
as  death,  relentless  as  doom ;  doing  God's  judgments  on  the 
enemies  of  God !  It  is  a  phenomenon  not  of  joyful  nature ; 
no,  but  of  awful ;  to  be  looked  at  with  pious  terror  and  awe." 

Viewing  the  Israelites  in  this  aspect,  as  the  consciously  com- 
missioned ministers  of  heaven's  vengeance  upon  an  utterly 
corrujit  and  imbruted  race,  their  case  is  lifted  completely  out 
of  the  common  range  of  warfare,  and  becomes  entirely  unique, 
—  no  longer  to  be  judged  of  by  the  ordinary  ethical  standards. 

A  late  author,  who  could  not  be  charged  with  fanaticism, — 
Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,^  —  has  the  following  eniphatic  defence 
of  the  Israelites,  and  of  their  warfare  of  extermination : 
"  And  if  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  God  dealt  hardly  with 
the  people  of  Canaan  in  commanding  them  to  be  so  utterly 
destroyed,  let  us  but  think  what  might  have  been  our  fate,  and 
the  fate  of  every  other  nation  under  heaven,  at  this  hour,  had 
the  sword  of  the  Israelites  done  its  work  more  sparingly- 
Even  as  it  was,  the  small  portions  of  the  Canaanites  who  were 
left  and  the  nations  around  tliem  so  temi)ted  the  Israelites  by 
their  idolatrous  practices  that  we  read  continually  of  the  whole 
people  of  God  turning  away  from  his  service.  But  had  the 
heatlien  lived  in  the  land  in  equal  numbers,  and  still  more,  had 

1  Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  ii.  53  (Second  edition). 
"  Sermon  iv.     "  Wars  of  the  Israelites."    See,  also,   Stanley's  Jewish 
Church.  Part  i.  l^ect.  .xi. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  269 

they  intermarried  largely  with  the  Israelites,  how  was  it  pos- 
sible, humanly  speaking,  that  any  sparks  of  the  light  of  God's 
truth  should  have  survived  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  . . .  The 
whole  earth  would  have  been  sunk  in  darkness ;  and  if  Mes- 
siah had  come  he  would  not  have  found  one  single  ear  prepared 
to  listen  to  his  doctrine  nor  one  single  heart  that  longed  in 
secret  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

"But  this  was  not  to  be,  and  therefore  the  nations  of  Canaan 
were  to  be  cut  off  utterly.  The  Israelites'  sword,  in  its 
bloodiest  executions,  wrought  a  work  of  mercy  for  all  the 
countries  of  the  earth  to  the  very  end  of  the  world.  ...  In  these 
contests  on  the  fate  of  one  of  these  nations  of  Palestine  the 
happiness  of  the  human  race  depended.  The  Israelites  fought 
not  for  themselves  only,  but  for  us.  Whatever  were  the  faults 
of  Jephthah  or  of  Samson,  never  yet  were  any  men  engaged 
in  a  cause  more  important  to  the  whole  world's  welfare.  . . . 
Still  they  did  God's  work;  still  they  preserved  unhurt  the 
seed  of  eternal  life,  and  were  the  ministers  of  blessing  to  all 
other  nations,  even  though  they  themselves  failed  to  enjoy  it." 

That  these  words  of  an  eminent  scholar  and  profound  thinker 
are  based  upon  sound  philosophical  principles  no  penetrating 
mmd  can  fail  to  perceive.  Nor  is  Dr.  Arnold  alone  in  liis 
opinion.  Others,  of  a  different  creed,  and  lookmg  from  a 
different  point  of  view,  have  reached  substantially  the  same 
conclusions. 

That  great  German  critic,  Ewald,'  treating  upon  this  topic, 
has  impressively  said :  "  It  is  an  eternal  necessity  that  a  nation 
such  as  the  great  majority  of  the  Canaanites  then  were,  sinking 
deeper  and  dce2:)er  into  a  slough  of  discord  and  moral  perversity, 
must  fall  before  a  people  roused  to  a  higher  life  by  the  newly- 
wakened  energy  of  unanimous  trust  in  Divine  power."  And  Dr. 
Davidson  ^ :  "  In  a  certain  sense,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a  spirit  of 
revenge,  casting  down  and  destroying  everything  opposed  to 


1  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  237.  «  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  444. 

23* 


270  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

the  progress  of  man's  education  in  the  knowledge  and  fear  of 
the  Lord." 

Children  slain.  Same  loved. 

And  he  went  up  from  thence  unto  And  they  brouftht  young  children  to 

Beth-el;  and  as  he  was  poinj;  up  bv  the  him,  that  he  should  touch  them;  and 

way,  there  came  forth  little  children  /as  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 

out  ot  the  city,  and  mocked  him,  and  thtm.    But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  wae 

said  unto  him.  Go  up,  thou  bald-head;  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them 

po  up,  thou  bald-head.     And  he  turned  Sufler  the  little  children  to  come  uiitc 

back,  and  looked  on  them,  and  cursed  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of  such 

them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.     And  is  the  kingdom  of  God.    And  he  took 

there  camo  forth  two  she-bears  out  of  them   uj)  in   his  arms,  put  his  hands 

the  wood,  and  tare  forty  and  two  chil-  upon  them,  and  blessed  them.    Mark 

area  of  them.    2  Kings  ii.  23,  24.  x.  13,  14,  16. 

1.  In  the  person  of  EHsha,  God  himself,  whose  servant  the 
prophet  was,  was  most  wantonly  and  wickedly  insulted. 

2.  The  word  "  nearim,"  rendered  "  children  "  in  Kings,  may, 
as  a  late  rationalistic  commentator  admits,  denote  a  ^^  youth 
nearly  twenty  years  old."  Gesenius  says  precisely  the  same ; 
adding  that  it  is  also  applied  to  "  common  soldiers,"  just  as  we 
in  English  style  them,     the  "  boys,"  the  "  boys  in  blue,"  etc. 

Fuerst  gives,  among  other  definitions,  a  person  who  is  twenty 
years  of  age,  a  youth,  a  young  prophet ;  generally  a  servant  of 
any  kind,  a  shepherd,  a  young  warrior.  The  same  combination 
of  words  as  above,  "  naar  qaton,"  is  applied  to  Solomon  ^  after 
he  began  to  reign  at  some  twenty  yeai-s  of  age.  Krummacher 
and  Cassel  translate  the  expression  in  the  text,  "  young  people." 
Hence  the  theory  that  these  young  scoffers  were  really  '•  little 
children  "  at  their  play  is  untenable.  They  were  old  enough, 
and  depraved  enough,  to  merit  the  terrible  fate  which  overtook 
them. 

3.  Elisha  did  not  slay  the  young  reprobates,  nor  did  he 
cause  the  bears  to  come  forth.  God  sent  them.  The  same 
Being  who  sometimes  cuts  off  wild,  wicked  youth  by  disease 
or  accident,  in  the  present  instance  punished  sinful  parents  by 
the  violent  death  of  their  reprobate  children.  Prof.  Kawlinson 
suggests  that  a  signal  example  may  have  been  greatly  needed 

'  1  Kings  ill.  7.  Seo  also  the  word  -irS  applied  to  Isaac,  Gen.  xxii.  5; 
to  Joseph,  compare  Gen.  xxix.  4-G  and  xli.  12;  to  Absalom,  2  Sam. 
xviii.  5,  and  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  Jer.  i.  5. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


271 


Not  to  he  hated. 
Thou  Shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite,  for 
he  is  thy  brotlier.    Deut.  xxiii.  7. 


at  this  time  to  check  the  growth  of  irreligion ;  and  that,  as 
above  intimated,  the  wicked  parents  were  punished  by  depriva- 
tion of  offspring. 

Edomite  hated. 
He  slew  of  Edom  in  the  valley  of  Salt 
ten  thousand. ...  And  ho  did  that  which 
wan  ri<rht  in  the  sifrht  of  the  Lord,  yet 
not  like  Uavid  his  father.  2  Kings  xlv. 
7,3. 

As  to  this  characteristically  "  profound  "  discrepancy,  alleged 
by  an  infidel  pamphleteer,  it  may  be  observed:  1.  Not  every 
act  of  Amaziah's  life  is  commended  above.  He  did,  iti  the 
main,  that  which  was  right,  but  less  uniformly  or  zealously 
than  David.  2.  It  does  not  follow  that  because  Amaziah 
chastised  and  reconquered  the  rebellious  Edomites  he  neces- 
sarily "  abhorred  "  them. 


Enemies  cursed. 

Let  their  way  be  dark  and  slippery : 
and  let  the  angel  of  the  Lord  persecute 
them.  .  .  .  Let  destruction  come  upon 
him  at  unawares;  and  let  his  net  that 
he  hath  hid  catch  himself:  into  that 
very  destruction  let  him  fall.  Ps.  xxxv. 
6,8. 

Let  death  seize  upon  them,  and  let 
them  go  down  quick  into  hell.  I's.  Iv.ly. 

Pour  out  thine  indignation  upon 
them,  and  let  thy  wrathful  anger  take 
hold  of  them.  .  .  .  Add  iniijuity  unto 
their  iniquity :  and  let  them  not  come 
into  tliy  righteousness.    Ps.  Ixix  24,  27. 

I>et  them  be  confounded  and  troubled 
for  ever :  yea,  let  them  be  put  to  shame, 
and  peri.'h.     Ps.  Ixx.xiii.  17. 

Set  thou  a  wicked  man  over  him: 
and  let  Satan  stand  at  his  right  hand. 
When  ho  shall  be  judged,  let  him  be 
condemned  :  and  let  his  prayer  become 
sin.  Let  his  days  be  few;  aiitt  let 
another  take  his  ollice.  Let  his  chil- 
dren be  fatherle.ss,  and  his  wife  a  widow. 
Let  his  children  be  continually  vaga- 
bonds, and  beg.     Ps.  ci.x.  G-10. 

Let  there  be  none  to  extend  mercy 
unto  him:  neither  let  there  be  any  to 
favor  his  fatherless  chi'dron.  I>ct  his 
posterity  be  cut  olf;  and  in  the  genera- 
tion following  let  their  name  be  blotted 
out.     Ps.  cix.  12,  13. 

As  he  clothed  himself  with  cursing 
like  as  with  his  garment,  so  let  it  come 
into  his  bowels  like  water,  and  like  oil 
into  his  hones.  Let  it  be  unto  him  as 
the  garment  irhich  covereth  him,  and 
for  a  girdle  wherewith  he  is  girded  con- 
tinually.   Ps.  ci.>:.  18,  19. 


Should  be  loved. 

Ix)ve  your  enemies,  bless  them  that 
curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate 
you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despite- 
fully  use  you,  and  persecute  you.  Jlatt. 
V.  44. 

Then  said  Jesus,  Father,  forgive 
them :  for  they  know  not  what  they  do. 
Luke  xxiii.  34. 

And  he  kneeled  down  and  cried, with 
a  loud  voice,  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to 
their  charge.    Acts  vii.  60. 


272  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Enemies  cursed.  Should  be  loved. 

O  daughter  of  Babylon,  who  art  to 
be  destroyed;  happy  shall  lie  be,  that 
rewardeth  thee  as  thou  hast  served  us. 
Happy  sliatl  he  be  that  taketh  and  dash- 
eth  thy  little  ones  against  the  stones. 
Ps.  cxxxvii.  8,9. 

If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  let  him  be  Anathema,  Maran- 
atha.    1  Cor.  xvi.  22. 

Some  critics  take  these  imprecatory  texts  as  mere  predictions: 
"  Let  his  days  be  few  "  being  equivalent  to  "  His  days  shall  be 
few."  These  predictions  would  also  imply  the  speaker's  acqui- 
escence in  the  foreseen  will  of  Jehovah :  "  It  is  the  Divine  will, 
therefore  let  it  be  so. 

Others  take  these  passages  as  historical,  rather  than  didactic. 
It  is  said  that,  as  the  Bible  relates  impartially  the  bad  as  well 
as  the  good  deeds  of  the  patriarchs,  so  it  does  not  suppress 
their  wrong  thoughts  and  sayings,  but  "  gives  a  Shakespearian 
picture  of  all  the  moral  workings  of  the  heart."  It  is  precisely 
this  its  jidelity  to  nature,  keejiing  back  nothing,  extenuating 
nothing,  which  gives  the  sacred  volume  its  hold  upon  the  con- 
fidence of  mankind.  "  Mr.  Barnes  admits  an  element  of  truth 
in  this  explanation,  and  Dr.  Tholuck  tlistinctly  holds  that  a 
personal  feeling  has  occasionally  mixed  itself  with  David's 
denunciations  of  the  wicked." 

Still  others  think  that  the  duty  of  forgiveness  was  not  taught 
nor  understood  clearly  in  David's  time,  as  it  was  in  the  latter 
dispensation.  This  hypothesis,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  is 
supported  by  the  analogous  cases  of  some  other  important 
doctrines  and  duties,  which  were  revealed  progressively,  by 
degrees,  as  the  world  was  })repared  to  receive  them.  In  a 
word,  the  Psalmist  may  not  have  understood,  in  all  its  length 
and  breadtli,  the  Christian  duty  of  forgiveness.  This  explana- 
tion is  adopted  by  several  eminent  authors.  Richard  Baxter ' 
speaks  very  strongly  on  this  point.  So  does  Mr.  Cooper,'^  who 
says  of   the  Israclitisli  worthies,  "  these  great  and  good  men 

'  Quoted  by  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  300. 
*  "  Four  Hundred  Texts  of  Holy  Scriptures,"  p.  80. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  273 

were  not  yet  acquainted  with  the  perfect  rule  of  charity,  or 
love  to  enemies,  to  be  taught  by  a  suffering  Saviour." 

Mr.  Warington/  with  reference  to  the  scripture,  asserts  that 
Christ  himself  lays  down  the  principle,  in  the  plainest  manner, 
that  it  may  contain  precepts  wliich.  regarded  in  the  abstract, 
are  opposed  to  God's  will,  but  wliich  were  rendered  necessary 
by  the  imperfect  spiritual  state  of  those  to  whom  they  were 
given.  In  which  case  this  temporary  adaptation  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  sufficient  explanation  for  the  precept  given." 

Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  ^  deems  it  a  most  important  exegetical 
principle  "  that  the  revelations  made  to  the  patriarchs  were 
only  partial,  or  limited  to  some  particular  points,  and  that 
their  conduct  must  be  judged  of  not  according  to  our  knowledge, 
but  to  theirs."  Hence,  he  says,  we  may  "  recognize  the  divinity 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  holiness  of  its  characters,  without 
lying  against  our  consciences  and  our  more  perfect  revelation 
by  justifying  the  actions  of  those  characters  as  right,  essentially 
and  abstractedly,  although  they  were  excusable,  or  in  some 
cases  actually  virtuous,  according  to  the  standard  of  right  and 
wrong  which  prevailed  under  the  law." 

Chrysostom,  ^  long  before,  referring  to  the  Israelites,  had  said, 
"  Now,  a  higher  philosoj^hy  is  required  of    us  than  of  them. 

For  thus  they  are  ordered  to  hate  not  only  impiety,  but 

the  very  persons  of  the  impious,  lest  their  friendship  should  be 
an  occasion  of  going  astray.  Therefore  he  cut  oflE  all  inter- 
course and  freed  them  on  every  side." 

Prof.  Moses  Stuart  * :  "  The  Old  Testament  morality,  in  re- 
spect to  some  points  of  relative  duty,  is  behind  that  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Why  then  should  we  regard  the  Old  Testament  as  exhib- 
iting an  absolute  model  of  perfection,  in  its  precepts  and  its 
doctrines  ?     In  some  respects,  most  plainly  this  is  not  true." 

'  On  Inspiration,  p.  2?3. 

^  jMisccl.  Works,  pp.  151,  288  (Appleton's  edition). 
^  On  1  Cor.  xiii,  and  alludinj;  to  Ps.  cxxxix.  22. 

*  On  Historj-  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  pp.  416,  409  (Revised  edition,  S89,  S82). 
Compare  his  remarks,  pp.  404,  405  (Revised  edition,  377,378). 


274  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Elsewhere,  he  says,  "  The  Psalms  that  breathe  forth  impreca- 
tions are  appealed  to  by  some  as  justifying  the  spirit  of  ven- 
geance under  the  gospel,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  the 
expression  of  a  peculiar  state  of  mind  in  the  writer,  and  of  his 
imperfect  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  full  spirit  of  forgiveness." 
These  last  are  very  pregnant  words. 

It  remains  to  be  observed  that  the  imprecatory  texts  are  ex- 
plicable on  the  hypothesis  of  their  full  inspiration.  The  follow- 
ing points  must  be  taken  into  account. 

1.  Great  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  sti'ong  hyperboles 
and  intense  vehemence  of  Oriental  poetry.  Where  we  should 
ask  that  the  Divine  honor  and  justice  might  be  vindicated,  the 
Eastern  poet  would  pray, 

"  That  thy  foot  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies, 
And  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same." 

The  petitions  quoted  above  would,  if  stated  in  unimpassioned 
Occidental  style,  be  greatly  modified,  and  seem  far  less  objec- 
tionable. 

2.  The  Psalmist  merges  his  own  private  griefs  in  the  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  the  people  of  God,  —  counts  the  Lord's  enemies 
as  enemies  to  himself.  He  cries  out,  "  Do  not  I  hate  them,  0 
Lord,  which  hate  thee  ?  I  count  them  mine  enemies."  He  iden- 
tified his  own  interests  with  those  of  his  heavenly  King.  "  He 
was  situated  like  the  English  statesman,  who  in  an  attack  upon 
himself  sees  the  crown  and  government  to  be  actually  aimed 
at."  From  this  representative  character  of  the  Psalmist  arises 
the  terrible  mtensity  of  his  language. 

3.  There  is  a  normal  indignation  against  sin.  There  are 
times  when  "  forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue,"  when  the  sense 
of  outraged  justice  must  find  expression.  Not  infrequently  a 
righteous  indignation  against  evil-doers  unsheatlies  the  patriot's 
sword,  and  kindles  the  poet's  lyre.  In  the  recent  history  of  our 
own  country  the  imprecatory  Psalms  seemed  none  too  strong 
nor  stern  to  serve  as  a  vehicle  for  the  loyalty  of  our  citizens, 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES,  275 

in  giving  voice  to  their  indignation,  horror,  and  detestation  at 
the  crimes  perpetrated  by  traitors  and  rebels. 

Prof.  B.  B.  Edwards^  says  in  substance,  that  resentment 
against  evil-doers  is  so  far  from  being  sinful,  that  we  find  it  ex- 
emplified in  the  meek  and  spotless  Redeemer  himself  (Mark  iii. 
5).  If  the  emotion  and  its  utterance  were  essentially  sinful, 
how  could  Paul  wish  the  enemy  of  Christ  to  be  accursed 
("anathema,"  1  Cor.  xvi.  22)  ;  or  say  of  his  own  enemy,  Alex- 
ander the  coppersmith,  "The  Lord  reward  him  according  to 
his  works"  (2  Tim.  iv.  14)  ;  and  especially  how  could  the 
spirits  of  the  just  in  heaven  call  on  God  for  vengeance  (Rev,  vi. 
10)? 

4.  It  is  right  to  pray  for  the  overthrow  of  the  wicked,  as  a 

means,  and  not  as  an  end,  when  we  are  satisfied  that  less  evil 

will  result  from  that  overthrow  than  would  be  dccasioned  by 

their  triumph.     David  felt  that  the  destruction  of  those  wicked 

persons,  while  not   to   be   desired  per  se,  would  nevertheless 

result  in  the  prevention  of  incalculable  injury  to  the  race.     Of 

two  evils  he  chose  the  infinitely  less.     Prayer  for  the  overthrow 

of  the  wicked  was  prayer  for  the  triumph  of  righteousness.^ 

Treated  kindly.  Put  to  pain. 

Therefore,  if  thine   enemy  hunger.  For  in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals 

feed  him ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink,  of  lire  ou  his  head.    Kom.  xii.  20. 
Bom.  xii.  20. 

Baiu"  asserts  that  in  the  latter  clause  Paul's  former  perse- 
cuting spirit  crops  out,  that  he  cannot  repress  here  the  desire 
to  inflict  pain  upon  an  enemy.  We  give  Baur  credit  for  too 
much  acuteness  to  suppose  that  he  was  not  perfectly  aware  of 
the  utter  disingenuousness  of  this  objection. 

The  figurative  language  of  the  apostle  means  simply,  "  By 
showing  kindness  to  thine  enemy  thou  shalt  excite  in  him 
such  pain  of  conscience  as  shall  lead  him  to  repentance  and 
reformation."     The  expression  is  a  proverbial  one.     The  Arabs 

'  Sec  IJib.  Sacra  (February,  1844), 

'  Sec  Professor  Park  in  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  xix.  pp.  165-210.  Also,  Smith's 
Bi!)!e  Diet.,  iii.  -iCiS-SG-i^. 


276  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 

say,  conveying  similar  ideas,  "  He  roasted  my  heart,"  or,  "  He 
kindled  a  fire  in  my  heart."  ^  The  pain  was  viewed  by  Paul 
as  a  means,  not  as  an  end ;  the  ultimate  object  being  the  con- 
version of  the  "  enemy." 

Addressed  with  riditule  and  irony.  With  mild  words. 

And  it  came  to  pass  at  noon,  that  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that 

Elijah    mocked    them,   and    said,   Cry  curse  you,  do  j;ood  to  them  that  hate 

aloud :  for  he  is  a  god :  either  he  is  talk-  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despite- 

ing,  or  he  is  pursuing,  or  he  is  in  a  jour-  fully  use  you,  and  persecute  you    Matt. 

iiey,  or  pei-adventure  he  sleepeth,  and  v.  44. 

must  be  awaked.    1  Kings  xviii.  27.  Bless  them  which  persecute  you ;  bless. 

And  the  king  said  unto  him,  Micaiah,  and  curse  not.    Kom   xii.  14. 
shall  we  go  against  liamoth-gilead  to  Who,  when   he  was  reviled,  reviled 
battle,  or  shall  we  forbear?    And  he  not  again;  when  he  suflered,  he  threat- 
answered  him,  Go,  and  prosper:  for  the  enod  not.    1 1'et.  ii  23. 
i.OKD  shall  deliver  it  into  the  hand  of  Not  rendering  evil  for  evil,  or  railing 
the  king,    livings  xxii.  15.  for  railing:  but  contrariwise,  blessing. 

And  Elisha  said  unto  them,  This  is  1  i*et.  iii.  9. 
not  the  way,  neither  is  this  the  city: 
follow  me,  and  I  will  bring  you  to  the 
man  whom  ye  seek.    But  he  led  them 
to  Samaria.    2  Kings  vi.  19. 

In  the  case  of  Elijah  ridicule  was  a  fit  weapon  for  exposing 
the  folly  and  absurdity  of  idol-worship.  The  ijrophet  employed 
it  with  terrible  effect. 

As  to  the  case  of  Micaiah,  Richter,  Keil,  Bertheau,  and  A. 
FuUer^  suppose  that  the  words  were  uttered  with  ironical 
gestures  and  a  sarcastic  tone.  He  delivers  the  words,  says 
Rawlinson,  "  in  so  mocking  and  ironical  a  tone  that  the  king 
cannot  mistake  his  meaning,  or  regard  his  answer  as  serious." 
The  succeeding  verse  shows  that  Ahab  instantly  detected  the 
irony. 

Biihr,  however,  takes  the  language  as  a  reproof  for  the  king's 
hypocritical  question,  thus :  "  How  earnest  thou  to  the  idea  of 
consulting  me,  whom  thou  dost  not  trust  ?  Thy  prophets  have 
answered  thee  as  thou  desirest.  Do,  then,  what  they  have 
approved.  Try  it.  March  out.  Their  oracles  have  far  more 
weight  with  thee  than  mine." 

Elisha's  statement  is  regarded  by  Keil  and  Rawlinson, 
apparently,  simply  in  the  light  of  a  "  stratagem  of  war,"  by 
which  the  enemy  are  deceived. 

'  See  Stuart  on  Rom.  xii.  20.  *  Works,  i.  619. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  277 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  also,  that  Elisha's  motive  was  a  be- 
nevolent one,  for  he  saved  the  lives  of  those  whom  he  had  taken 
captive  in  this  wonderful  manner ;  thus  putting  a  stop  to  the 
marauding  forays  of  the  Syrians.  Thenius  :  "  There  is  no  un- 
truth in  the  words  of  Elisha ;  for  his  home  was  not  in  Dothan, 
where  he  was  only  residing  temporarily,  but  in  Samaria ;  and 
the  words  '  to  the  man'  may  well  mean,  to  his  house."  As  Bahr 
has  observed,  Elisha  took  the  blinded  Syrians  under  his  pro- 
tection, repaid  evil  with  good,  and  by  this  very  means  showed 
them  the  man  whom  they  were   seeking. 

Some  regard  the  prophet's  language  as  mere  irony. 

Epithets  of  opprobrium. 

Forbidden.  Their  use  sanctioned. 

Whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother,        Ye  fools  and  blind:  for  whether  is 
Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council :    greater,  the  gold,  or  the  temple  that 
but  whosoever  sliall    say.  Thou  fool,    sanctitieth  the  gold?    Matt,  xxiii.  17. 
shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire.    Matt.        Then  he  said  unto  them,  O  fools,  and 
V.  22.  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 

prophets  have  spoken.     Luke  xxiv.  25. 
1  hou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowest  is 
not  quickened  except  it  die.    1  Cor,  xv. 
36. 

O  foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  be- 
witched you,  that  ye  should  not  obey 
the  truth.    Gal.  iii.  1. 

The  term  "  moros,"  in  the  texts  from  Matthew  is  much  more 
severe  than  the  corresponding  terms  in  the  other  places.  He 
who  "  knew  what  was  in  man,"  saw  that  this  word  was  exactly 
descriptive  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 

As  in  many  other  cases,  the  spirit  rather  than  the  words  is 
aimed  at  in  the  prohibition.  That  is,  we  are  not  prohibited 
calling  men  "  fools "  considerately  and  appropriately ;  we  are 
forbidden  to  do  so  in  the  spirit  of  malevolent  contempt.  This 
obvious  principle  relieves  the  whole  difficulty. 

Fear  of  persecutors. 

Forbidden.  Exemplified. 

And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends.  Be  After  these  things  Jesus  walked  in 
not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  Galilee:  for  he  would  not  walk  in 
and  alter  that  have  no  more  that  they  Jewry,  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill 
can  do.    Luke  xii.  4.  him.'  John  vii.  1. 

Jesus  did  not  shun  death,  but  avoided  dying  prematurely. 
When  his  "  hour  had  come,"  when  his  earthly  mission  was  ac- 
24 


278  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

complislied,  he  met  death  with  fortitude  and  composure.  To 
die  before  the  time  would  have  measurably  defeated  his  great 
purpose. 

Folly,  —  treatment. 

Folly  remediable.  Be7nediless. 

Foolislinoss  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  Though  thou  shouldest  bray  a  fool  in 
a  cliild,  but  ttie  rod  of  corrpction  shall  a  mortar  among  wheat  with  a  pestle, 
drive  it  far  from  him.    I'rov.  xxii.  15.      yet  will  not  his  foolishness  depart  from 

him.    Prov.  xxvii.  22. 

These  passages  refer  to  entirely  different  persons.  "  Fool- 
ishness," in  the  first  text,  is  the  incipient  waywardness  which 
belongs,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  children,  and  may  be 
corrected  by  suitable  discipline.  The  "  fool "  in  the  second  text, 
is  the  grown-up  fool,  whose  folly  is  past  cure. 

Anaioered  in  one  way.  In  another  way. 

Answer  not  a  fool   accordin<r  to  liis  Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 

folly,  lest  thou  also  be  like  uuto  him.  lest  he  be  wise  in  his    own  conceit. 

I'ro'v.  xxvi.  4.  Prov.  xxvi.  5. 

May  not  this  be  a  simple  dilemma,  equivalent  to  saying, 
"  Choose  between  the  two  evils.  If  you  answer  the  fool  in  a 
foolish  manner,  you  like  him  will  be  chargeable  with  folly.  On 
the  other  hand,  should  you  undertake  to  argue  with  him,  he, 
failing  to  appreciate  your  reasoning,  will  think  himself  unan- 
swerable, and  so  become  more  obtrusive  and  offensive  than  ever." 

Or,  the  two  texts  may  refer  to  different  cases,  thus :  In  cer- 
tain circumstances,  do  not  answer  the  fool  at  all.  Silence  is 
often  the  most  fitting  answer  to  a  foolish  question  or  remark. 
In  other  cases,  answer  the  fool  with  sharp  reproof,  exposing 
his  folly  as  it  deserves. 

Menasseh  ben  Israel  ^ ;  "  Correct  and  mend  him,  that  he 
may  know  his  folly  and  madness.  Imitate  not  his  passions, 
errors,  and  improper  words." 

Andrew  Fuller'^  makes  the  meaning  depend  ujion  the  turn 
given  to  the  words  "  according  to  his  folly."  In  tlie  first  text, 
he  takes  tills  j)hraseology  as  implying,  in  a  foolish  manner ;  in 
th(!  second,  as  signifying,  ?'/i  tlte  manner  tvliicli  liis  folli/  requires. 
"  A  foolish  speech  is  not  a  rule  for  our  imitation  ;  nevertheless 

'  Conciliator,  ii.  287.  ^  Works,  i.  672. 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  279 

our  answer  must  be  so  framed  by  it  as  to  meet  and  repel  it." 
On  this  hypothesis,  the  first  text  is  illustrated  by  the  answer 
of  Moses  to  the  rebellious  Israelites ;  ^  the  second  text  by  that 
of  Job  to  his  wife.^ 

Moses  answered  folly  in  a  foolish  manner  ;  Job  answered  it, 
not  in  kind,  but  in  the  manner  it  deserved. 

Fruit  trees  disposed  of. 

Spared.  Destroyed. 

When  thou  slialt  besiejre a  city  along  And  this  is  but  a.  h^ht  thinpr  in  the 

time  in  nial<injr  war  against  it  to  tnke  it,  siglit  of  the  Lord  :  lie  will  deliverthe 

thou  shall  not  destroy  the  trees  thereof  JMoabites  also  into  your  hand.     And  ye 

by  forcing  an  axe  against  them;  for  shall  smite  every  fenced  city,  and  every 

thou   mayest  eat  of  thera:    and   thou  choice  city,  and   shall   fell   every  good 

Shalt  not  cut  them  down  (for  the  tree  tree,  and  stop  all  wells  of  water,  and 

of  the  tield  is  man's  /ife)  to  employ  mar  every  good    piece   of  land  with 

tUem  in  the  siege.    Deut.  xx.  19.  stones.    2  Kings  iii.  18,  19. 

Hengstenberg^  and  Keil  *  say  tliat  the  injunction  in  Deuteron- 
omy was  applicable  only  in  the  case  of  Canaanitish  cities,  which 
the  Israelites  were  afterward  to  inhabit.  Rawlinson  thinks  that 
the  text  from  Deuteronomy  really  prohibits  "  only  the  using 
of  the  fruit-trees  for  timber  in  siege-works  ;  "  and  applies  only 
to  those  countries  which  the  Israelites  intended  to  occupy. 

Good  ivorks. 

To  be  seen  by  men.  Not  to  be  seen  by  them. 

Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  Take  heed  that  yo  do  not  your  alms 
that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  before  men,  to  be  seen  of  them :  other- 
and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  wise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your  Father 
heaven.    Jlilatt.  v.  16.  which  is  in  heaven.    Matt.  vi.  1. 

The  glory  of  God,  and  not  the  praise  of  men,  must  be  our 
ultimate  object  m  exhibiting  our  "  good  works"  before  others. 
A.  Fuller :  "  This  is  another  of  those  cases  in  which  the  differ- 
ence lies  in  the  motive.  It  is  right  to  do  that  which  men  may 
see  and  must  see,  but  not^or  the  sake  of  being  seen  by  them." 

Heretics  dealt  with. 

With  severity.  With  gentleness. 

Simon  son  of  Jonas,  lovcst  thou  me?  In  meekness  instructing  those  that 

He  said   unto   him,   Yea,    Lord:   thou  opjiose   themselves;  if  (iod   jieradv;'n- 

kiiowest  that  I  love  thee,  lie  saith  unto  ture  will  give  tlieni  repentance  to  the 

him,  Fceil  my  sheep.     Jnhn  xxi.  l(i.  acknowledging   of   the    truth.    2  Tim. 

And  there  "came  a  voice  to  him,  Kise,  ii.  25. 
Teter;  kill,  and  eat.    Acts  x.  13. 

>  Num.  XX.  10.  a  Job  ii.  10. 

^  Geuuiiiciics.s  of  Tent.  i.  170.  ^  On  2  Kings  iii.  19. 


280  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

From  the  first  two  passages  combined,  Cardinal  Bellarmine^ 
infers  the  "  twofold  function  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  as  successor 
of  Peter,  viz.  to  feed  the  church  and  to  put  heretics  to  death." 
One  cannot  but  wonder  that  this  famous  exegete  did  not  ad- 
vance a  step  further,  and  infer  the  duty  of  cannibalism  from 
the  same  text.  The  language  is  certainly  very  explicit :  "  Rise, 
Peter,  kill,  and  eat !  " 

Improvidence. 

Sanctioned.  Discouraged. 

Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  A  good  man  leaveth  an  inheritance 
upon  earth.  .  .  .  Therefore  I  say  unto  to  his  children's  children.  Prov.  xiii. 
you,  Take  no  thought  for  your  life.    22. 

what  ye  shall  eat,   or  what  ye  shall        But  if  any  provide  not  for  his  own, 
drink;  nor  yet  for  your  b(>dy,  what  ye    and  specially  for  those  of  his  own  house, 
shall   put  on.    ...  Take  therefore  no    he  hath  denied  the  faith,  and  is  worse 
thought  for  the  morrow:  for  the  mor-    than,  an  iutidel.    ITim.  v.  8. 
row  sliall  take  thought  for  the  things 
of  itself.    Matt.  vi.  19,  25,  34. 

Give  to  every  man  that  asketh  of 
thee;  and  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy 
goods,  ask  thi-m  not  again.  . . .  But  love 
ye  your  enemies,  and  Uo  good,  and  lend, 
hoping  for  nothing  again.  Luke  vi.  30, 
35. 

Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms. 
Luke  xii.  33. 

Make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to 
fuljil  the  lusts  thereof.    Horn.  xiii.  14. 

If  the  texts  at  the  left  be  carefully  examined  in  their  con- 
nection with  the  context,  it  will  be  seen  that  none  of  them 
discountenance  prudence  and  true  economy,  nor  encourage 
■wastefulness.  The  first  text  simply  forbids  our  making  earthly 
possessions  our  "  treasure,"  our  chief  good.  We  must  not  set 
our  hearts  upon  them. 

The  word  "  thought,"  in  the  next  two  texts,  as  in  our  early 
Engli-sh  literature,  means  solicitude,  anxious  care.  Thus  Ba- 
con ^  mentions  an  alderman  of  London  who  "  dyed  with  thought 
and  anguish."  Hence  the  precept  is  :  "  Be  not  unduly  anxious 
concerning  your  life,"  etc. 

The  first  two  texts  from  Luke  inculcate  concretely  the  abstract 
principle  of  benevolence,  but  do  not  sanction  improvidence. 

'  See  Uornc's  Introduction,  ii.  fi32  (Sevcntli  edition). 
*  Kastwood  and  \Vri;,'ht,  "  liible  Word-Book,"  p.  483. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  281 

The  text  from  Luke  xii.  lias,  according  to  Meyer,  a  specific 
application,  being  "  addressed  only  to  the  apostles  and  then 
existing  disciples."  The  quotation  from  Romans,  with  its 
important  limiting  clause,  allows  us  to  make  provision  for  the 
needs,  but  not  for  the  lusts  of  the  flesh. 

Incest. 

Dencnmced.  Divinely  sanctioned. 

See  prohibitions  of  this  crime  in  Lev.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  As  for 
xviii.  and  xx.  Also,  denunciations  in  Sarai  thy  wife,  thou  shall  not  call  her 
Deut.  xxvii.  name  Sarai,  but  .Sarah  shall  her  name 

be.  And  I  will  bless  her,  and  give  thee 
a  son  also  of  her:  yea,  I  will  bless  her, 
and  she  shall  be  a  mo?/(er  of  nations ; 
kings  of  people  shall  be  of  her.  Oen. 
xvii.  15,  16. 

And  yet  indeed  she  is  my  sister;  she 
is  the  daughter  of  my  father,  but  not 
the  daughtier  of  my  mother;  and  she 
became  my  wife.    Gen.  xx.  12. 

The  terms  "  brother,"  "  sister,"  and  the  like  are  used  in  the 
scriptures  with  great  latitude  of  meaning,  much  like  the  Latin 
term  "  parentes,"  or  the  word  "  cousin,"  in  modern  speech.  For 
example.  Lot,  Abraham's  nephew,  is  styled  his  "  brother " ;  ^ 
Rebekah's  mother  and  brother  say  to  her,  "  Thou  art  our 
sister  "  ^ ;  Jacob  speaks  of  himself  as  his  uncle's  "  brother  "  ^ ; 
Dinah  is  styled  by  her  brothers,  "  our  daughter."* 

It  is  thus  clear  that  the  term  ''  sister "  makes  Sarah  a  near 
relative,  but  does  not  determine  the  degree  of  relationship. 
Lange  suggests  that  she  may  have  been  merely  the  "  adopted 
sister  "  of  Abraham.  Bush  and  Delitzsch  think  she  may  have 
been  a  niece  of  Abraham  —  daughter  of  his  brother,  or,  as- 
Delitzsch  says,  "  half-brother,"  Ilaran.  In  this  view  concur 
Jerome,  Josephus,"  the  Talmud,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  and 
Rashi,  with  Jewish  writers  generally.*  These  authors  take 
Sarah,  who  was  but  ten  years  younger  than  Abraham,^  to  be 
identical  with  Iscah.^ 

AH  we  are  warranted  in  saying  is,  that  Sarah  was  neai-^y 

1  Gen.  xiv.  12,  16.  «  Gen.  xxiv.  55,  60. 

«  Gen.  xxix.  12.  *  Gen.  xxxiv.  14, 17. 

*  Antiq.  I.  vi.  5.  •  Macdonald,  Introd.  to  Pent.  i.  70. 
'  Gen.  xvii.  17.  Gen.  xi.  29. 

24* 


282  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

related — a  cousin  or  niece,  perhaps  —  to  Abraham  upon  his 
father's  side.  She  may  have  been  related  to  Terah  by  a  former 
wife,  and  afterwards  adopted  by  him  as  a  daughter. 

As  to  the  case  of  Lot  and  his  unhappy  daughters,  recorded 
in  Gen.  xix.,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  narrative  is  related  in 
the  usual  colorless  style,  without  comment,  by  the  sacred  writer. 
There  is  no  concealment,  no  extenuation,  of  the  crime. 

It  is  clear  that  their  residence  in  Sodom  had  blinded  the 
minds  of  these  misguided  females,  and  greatly  confused  their 
ideas  relative  to  purity  and  right  and  wrong.  This  case ' 
forcibly  illustrates  the  demoralizing  influence  exerted  upon  the 
young  by  corrupt  companions. 

Israelites'  clahn  to  Canaan. 

Derived  from  God.  Precluded  in  the  law. 

And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  house,  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  bor's  wifie,  nor  his  manservant,  nor  his 
for  an  everlasting  possession.  Gen.  maidservant,  nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass, 
xvii.  8.  nor  any  thing  that  is  thy  neighbor's. 

And  I  will  set  thy  bounds  from  the  Ex.  xx.  17. 
Eed  sea  even  unto  the  sea  of  the  Philis- 
tines, and  from  the  desert  unto  the 
river:  for  I  will  deliver  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land  into  your  hand;  and  thou 
shalt  drive  them  out  before  thee.  Kx. 
xxiii.  31. 

Widely  divergent  opinions  have  been  maintained  upon  the 
question  of  the  "  right  of  the  Hebrews  to  Palestine."  "We 
subjoin  the  more  reasonable. 

Michaelis^  and  Dr.  Jahn  hold  that  Palestine  had  from  time 
immemorial  been  a  land  of  Hebrew  herdsmen  ;  and  the  Israel- 
ites, who  had  never  abandoned  dieir  right  to  it,  claimed  it  again 
of  the  Cauaanites  as  unlawful  possessors. 

Ewald^  expresses  the  opinion  that,  though  the  Canaanites 
had  gained  possession  of  Palestine  as  its  original  inhabitants, 
they  had  not  occupied  the  whole  country.  The  pasture-lands 
lay  open  to  those  who  wished  to  appropriate  them,  which  was 

*  See  LanKC,  f'om.  on  Genesis,  p.  81  (American  edition). 

'  Commentary  on  Mosaic  Laws,  i.  15'J. 

'•'  Die  Composition  dor  Genesis,  pp.  27C-278.  See  Davidson's  Introd.  i.  437. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  283 

done  by  the  ancestors  of  the  Israelites.  But  during  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  the  Canaanites  unjustly  occupied  these  pastures,  and 
when  the  returning  Hebrews  asserted  their  rights  the  Canaan- 
ites would  not  acknowledge  them.  Hence  the  Israelites  took 
possession  of  the  country,  partly  in  virtue  of  their  ancient 
possession  of  some  of  it,  and  partly  by  conquest. 

A  simpler  view  is  that  wdiich  derives  the  claim  of  the 
Israelites  directly  from  Jehovah  himself. 

Hengstenberg  ^ :  "  The  Israelites  had  no  human  right  what- 
ever to  Canaan.  Their  right  rested  entirely  on  God's  gift. 
By  this  no  injustice  was  done  to  the  Canaanites.  By  their 
great  depravity  they  had  rendered  themselves  unworthy  of 
being  any  longer  possessors  of  the  land,  which  God,  as  in  the 
case  of  all  other  nations,  only  gave  them  conditionally.  The 
Israelites  were  sent  against  them  as  ministers  of  the  Divine 
justice ;  so  that  their  destruction  differed  only  in  form  from 
that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  God's  giving  Canaan  to  the 
Israelites  was  at  once  an  act  of  grace  and  of  justice." 

This  is  the  scriptural  view  of  the  matter.^  It  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  him  who  hath  "  determined  the  times  before  ap- 
pointed, and  the  bounds  of  the  habitation  of  the  nations,"  to 
bestow  a  land  upon  whomsoever  he  chooses.  The  same  Being 
who  took  America  out  of  the  hands  of  the  red  men,  and 
bestowed  it  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  took  Palestine  out  of 
the  hands  of  degraded  idolators,  and  gave  it  to  the  Hebrews. 

Dr.  Davidson  *  well  says :  "  When  a  nation  becomes  corrupt 
and  weak,  it  must  give  place,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  a 
stronger.  Those  that  have  grown  old  in  superstition  and 
idolatry  make  way  for  such  as  have  a  more  spiritual  vitality." 

Jewess'  tnarriage. 

Restricted  to  her  tribe.  Not  thns  restricted. 

And  ovory  diuiprhtcr.  tliat  pusspssoth  If  the  priest's  dauprlitor  also  bo  mai^ 
an  iulioriiauco  in  any  tribe  of  tlie  chil-    ried  unto  a  stranger,  she  may  not  eat 

*  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  387-417.  -  Ps.  xliv.  1-3;  Ixxviii.  r>5. 

*  Introd.  to  Old  Teat.,  i.  444.    Compare  Fairbaim's  Typology,  loo.  cit. 


284 


DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE    BIBLE. 


Restricted  to  her  tribe.  Not  thus  restricted. 

dren  of  Israel,  shall  be  wife  unto  one    of  an  ofToring  of  the  holy  things.    Lev. 
of  tlie  family  of  the  tribe  of  her  father,    xxii.  12. 
that  the  children  of  Israel  may  enjoy 
every    man    the  inheritance  of  his  fa- 
thers,   ^'um.  xxxvi.  8. 

It  is  clear,  as  Menasseh  ben  Israel  says,  that  the  first  passage 
applies  only  to  heiresses.  The  object  of  the  precept  was  to 
prevent  confusion  by  the  transference  of  landed  jaroperty  from 
one  tribe  to  another.  A  daughter  who  inherited  no  real  estate 
might  marry  out  of  her  tribe. 


Judging  of  otJiers. 

Forbidden. 
Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged. 


Allowed. 


Judge  not  according  to  the  appear- 

For  with  what  judgment  ye  judged  ye  ance,   but   judge  righteous  judgment, 

shall  be  judged  :  and  with  what  measure  John  vii.  24. 

ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  For  what  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them 

again.    JIatt  vii.  1,  2.  also  that  are  without?  do  not  ye  judge 

Judge  not, and  yeshall  not  be  judged:  them  that  are  within?    ICor.  v.  12. 
condemn  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  con- 
demned.   Luke  vi.  37. 

The  text  from  Matthew  forbids  harsh,  censorious  judgment, 
but  does  not  jireclude  the  giving  of  judicial  decisions,  nor  the 
expression  of  our  opinions  in  a  proper  manner. 

The  parallelism  of  the  text  from  Luke,  "  judge  not,"  "  con- 
denm  not,"  indicates  the  kind  of  judgment  prohibited. 

Justice  administered. 

By  one  judge.  By  several. 

Moses  sat  to  judge  the  people;  and        And  thou  shalt  come  unto  the  priests 

the  people  stood  by  Moses  from  the    the  Lcvites,  and  unto  the  judge  that 

morning  unto  the  evening.    Ex.  xviii.    shall  b(^  in  those  days,  and  inquire;  and 

la.  they  shall  shew  thee  the  sentence  of 

judgment.     Deut.  xvii.  9. 

Hoth  the  men,  between  .whom  the 
controv(>rsy  is,  sliall  stand  before  the 
Loud,  before  the  priests  and  the  judges, 
which  shall  be  in  those  days.  lA-ut. 
xix.  17. 

'then  thy  elders  and  thv  judges  shall 
come  forth.    Deut.  xxi,  2. 

A  recent  author  discovers,  as  he  thinks,  some  discrepancy 
here.  But  in  Ex.  xviii.  13-2G,  we  find  an  account  of  the 
change  from  one  judge  to  a  plurality,  with  the  reasons  therefor. 

Moreover,  the  altered  circimistunces  of  the  jieople  upon  their 
exchange  of  a  nomadic  life  for  settlement  in  Canaan,  occa- 
sioned the  other  modifications  of  earlier  laws,  which  are  dis- 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  285 

coverable  in  Deuteronomy.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Davidson,* 
"  Shouki  any  say  that  the  altered  cu'cumstances  of  the  Israelites 
in  Palestine  called  for  these  changes ;  that  is  true." 

Michaelis  ^  seems  to  hold  that,  because  the  people  "  dwelt  no 
longer  in  round  numbers  together,"  the  former  custom  was 
modified,  and  judges  were  appointed  in  every  city. 

Killing  of  Men. 

Forbidden.  Sanctioned. 

Jesus  said.  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.        Then  Moses  stood  in  the  gate  of  the 
Matt.  xix.  18.  camp,  and  said,  Who  is  on  the  Lord's 

side?  let  him  come  unto  me.  And  all 
the  sons  of  Levi  gathered  themselves 
together  unto  him.  And  lie  said  unto 
them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Is- 
rael, Put  every  man  his  sword  by  his 
side,  and  go  in  and  out  from  gate  to 
gate  throughout  the  camp,  and  slay 
every  man  his  brother,  and  every  man 
his  companion,  and  every  man  his 
neighbor.     Ex.  x.x.vii.  26,  27. 

And  Moses  said  unto  the  judges 
of  Israel,  Slay  ye  every  one  his  men 
that  were  joined  unto  Baal-peor.  .  .  . 
When  rhinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar, 
the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest,  saw  it,  he 
rose  up  from  among  the  congregation, 
and  took  a  javelin  in  his  hand  . . .  And 
he  went  after  the  man  of  Israel  into 
the  tent,  and  thrust  both  of  them 
through,  the  man  of  Israel,  and  the 
woman.    Num.  xxv.  5,  7,  8. 

In  both  cases  at  the  right  the  slaughter  was  the  signal 
punishment  of  an  atrocious  crime. 

In  the  first  case,  the  Israelites  had  lapsed  into  gross  idolatry, 
breaking  their  covenant  with  God,  and  committing  treason 
against  their  Sovereign.  Their  offence  was  of  the  most  aggra- 
vated character,  and  merited  capital  punishment.  Calvin,  Keil, 
Bush,  and  others  think  that  only  those  were  slain  by  the 
Levites  who  were  recognized  as  the  originators  and  ringleaders 
of  the  crime,  or  who  stood  boldly  forth  as  its  promoters  and 
abettors.  These,  being  found  in  the  open  spaces,  while  the 
rest  of  the  people  had  fied  to  their  tents,  would  alone  be  slain. 

Much  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  second  case.  The  He- 
brews had  fallen  into  the  licentious  idolatry  of  Baal  Peor. 
'  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  363.  -  Mosaic  Laws,  i.  245. 


286  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

Moses  commanded  that  all  the  guilty  should  be  slain.  In  this 
hour  of  national  humiliation  and  sorrow,  while  the  people  were 
weei^ing  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  Zimri,  a  man  of  rank, 
brought  into  his  tent,  in  the  sight  of  the  multitude,  a  Midianitish 
paramour.  This  shameless  and  flagrant  outrage  was  swiftly 
and  fearfully  punished  by  Pliinehas,  under  the  impulse  of 
patriotism  and  loyalty  to  God.  His  zeal  in  this  respect  was 
properly  commended. 

Kindred,  how  regarded. 

Hated.  Loved. 

If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as 
his  father,  and  mother,  and  wile,  and  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  himself  f)>r  it.  ...  J.et  every  one  of  you 
and  his  own  life  also,  lie  cannot  be  my  in  jjarticular  so  love  his  wife  eveii  as 
disciple.    L.uke  xiv.  26.  himself:  and  the  wife  see  that  she  rev- 

erence her  husband.     Eph.  v.  25,  33. 

He  that  lovuth  not  liiis  brother, 
abideth  in  death.  Whosoever  hateth  his 
brother,  is  a  murderer.  IJohniii.  14,  15. 

The  word  "  hate  "  is  sometimes  used  in  the  Bible  in  the  sense 
of  to  love  less.  Thus  of  Jacob  it  is  said  that  he  "  loved  Rachel 
more  than  Leali,"  and,  a  little  farther  on,  that  Leah  was 
"  hated."  ^ 

Prof.  Stuart :  "  "When  the  Hebrews  compared  a  stronger 
affection  with  a  weaker  one,  they  call  the  first  love,  and  the 
other  hatred." 

Alford :  "It  hardly  need  be  observed  that  t/iis  hate  is  not 
only  consistent  with,  but  absolutely  necessary  to  the  very  highest 
kind  of  love.  It  is  tliat  element  in  love  wliich  makes  a  man  a 
wise  and  Christian  friend,  not  for  time  only,  but  for  eternity.'' 

In  our  day  a  convert  from  heathenism  is  sometimes  re- 
proached by  his  idolatrous  kindi'ed  with  "hating"  them,  because 
he  does  not  yield  to  their  solicitations,  and  renounce  Christianity. 
But  the  ti-uth  is,  he  loves  them  better  than  ever  before;  he 
loves  them  not  less,  but  loves  Christ  more. 

The  very  fact  that,  in  tlie  first  text,  the  man  is  spoken  of  as 
hatiiKj  "his  own  life,"  indicates  the  figurative  or  relative  sense 
in  which  the  term  is  there  employed. 

'  Gen.  xxi.\.  80,  31. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


287 


Parents  honored. 

Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mothor; 
that  thy  days  may  be  lonp  upon  the 
land  wliich  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth 
tliee.     Kx.  XX.  12. 

Children,  obey  rjour  parents  in  all 
things :  for  this  is  well-pleasing  unto 
the  Lord.    Col.  iii.  20. 


Treated  disrapect/ulbj. 

And  call  no  man  your  fither  upon 
the  earth  :  forone  is  your  l-atlier  which 
is  in  heaven.     Jlatt.  x.xiii   9. 

And  he  .«aid  unto  another,  Follow 
me.  But  he  said,  Lord.  sutU-r  me  first 
to  go  and  bury  my  father.  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead  : 
but  go  thou  and  preach  the  kingdom  of 
God.    Luke  ix.  59,  (JO. 

We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  text  from  Matthew  speaks 
of  spiritual  relations.  ''  Take  no  man  as  an  authoritative, 
infallible  guide  in  matters  of  religion."  It  does  not  prohibit 
our  paying  to  our  parents  due  honor.  It  merely  forbids  our 
"•  trusting  in  man,  and  making  flesh  our  arm."  ^  As  to  the  case 
cited  from  Luke,  Theophylact  supposes  that  the  disciple  asked 
permission  to  reside  with  his  father  till  his  death.  If  the  father 
were  still  living,  Jesus  may  have  foreseen  that  he  would  live 
for  a  considerable  time,  so  that  delay  was  needless. 

Alford^:  Suffer  the  spiritually  dead  to  bury  the  literally 
dead ;  the  reason  of  our  Lord's  rebuke  being  the  peremptory 
and  all-superseding  nature  of  the  command.  Follow  me. 

Doubtless  Jesus  knew  that  there  were  a  sufficient  number  of 
relatives  at  this  man's  house  to  attend  to  the  duty  of  interment 
when  necessary ;  also,  that,  if  the  man  once  went  back  home, 
he  would  be  over-persuaded  to  remain,  and  so  never  engage  in 
the  great  work  of  preaching  the  gospel. 

The  case  was  an  exceptional  one,  simply  implying  that  all 
other  things  must  be  made  subordinate  to  the  gospel. 


Children  put  to  death. 
If  a  man  liave  a  stubborn  and  rebel- 
lious .-^on,  which  will  notobev  the  voice 
of  his  father,  or  the  voice  of  his  mother, 
and  tlidt,  when  they  have  chastened 
him,  will  nut  hearken  unto  them. 
'1  hen  shall  his  father  and  his  muther 
lay  hold  nn  him,  and  bring  him  out 
unto  the  elders  of  liis  city,  and  unto  the 
pate  of  his  jilace  And  they  shall  say 
unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This  our 
son  is  stubbiirn  and  rebellious,  he  will 
not  obey  our  voice;  lie  /»  a  glutton,  and 
a  drunkard.  And  all  the  men  of  his 
city  shall  ston{>  hitn  with  stones,  that 
lie  die:  so  shalt  thiru  put  evil  away 
from  among  you,  and  all  Israel  shall 
hear,  and  fear.    Deut.  xxi.  18-21. 

'  Sec  Jer.  xvii.  5. 


Tenderly  treated. 

And,  ye  fithers,  provoke  not  your 
children  to  wrath:  but  brin^  them  up 
.in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lonl.     ICph.  vi.  4. 

Fathers,  provoke  not  your  children 
to  anger,  lest  they  be  discouraged.  Col. 
iii.  21 


On  Matt.  viii.  21.  22. 


288  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

With  regard  to  the  apparently  severe  law  in  Deuteronomy, 
observe : 

1.  That  it  is  a  son,  and  not  a  daughter. 

2.  That  he  is  "  stubborn  "  and  "  rebellious,"  a  "  glutton  "  and 
a  "  drunkard." 

3.  The  parents  are  the  only  allowed  plaintiffs,  and  both  must 
concur  in  the  complaint  to  make  it  a  legal  one. 

4.  He  is  brought  before  the  elders  of  the  city,  and  an  in- 
vestigation is  had  into  the  merits  of  the  case. 

5.  That  no  case  is  on  record  in  which  a  person  was  put  to 
death  under  this  law. 

6.  That  the  mere  fact  of  the  existence  of  such  a  law  would 
tend  strongly  to  confirm  the  authority  of  parents,  and  to  deter 
youth  from  disobedience  and  uniilial  conduct. 

Levites'  Portion. 

A  fixed  residence.  They  were  sojourners. 

Command  thfi  children  of  Israel,  that  Take  heed  to  thyself  that  thou  for- 

they  ffivc  unto  tlie  Levites  of  the  in-  sake  not  the   Levite  as  long  as  thou 

heritance  of  their  possession  cities  to  livest  upon  the  earth.    Deut.  xii.  19. 

dwell  in;  and  ye  shall  give  a/so  unto  And  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy 

tlie  Levites  suburbs  for  the  cities  round  gates;  thou  slialt  not  forsake  him:  for 

about  them.  ...  So  all  the  cities  which  lie  hath  no  part  nor  inheritance  with 

ye  shall   give  to  the  Levites  shall  be  thee.    JDeut.  xiv.  27. 
forty  and  eight  cities.  Kum.  xxxv.  2,  7. 

Mr.  Plumptre  ^ :  "If  they  were  to  have,  like  other  tribes,  a 
distinct  territory  assigned  to  them,  their  influence  over  the 
people  at  large  would  be  diminished,  and  they  themselves  would 
be  likely  to  forget,  in  labors  common  to  them  with  others,  their 
own  peculiar  calling.  Jehovah,  therefore,  was  to  be  their 
inheritance.     They  were  to  have  no  territorial  possessions." 

Ewald  ^ :  "  The  Levites,  not  being  destined  to  agriculture, 
held  with  each  city  only  the  meadows  thereto  belonging,  for  the 
pasturage  of  some  cattle,  but  not  its  arable  land  or  homesteads. 
Thus  Ihe  ancient  city  of  Hebron  became  a  priestly  city ;  but  its 
land  devolved  upon  Caleb." 

The  same  great  critic,  speaking  of  the  subsequent  neglect  of 
assigned  cities,  says  the  entire  system  fell  into  confusion,  as  ia 

'  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1640.  »  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  309,  310. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  289 

clear  not  only  from  its  never  being  mentioned  m  later  times  as 
still  existing,  but  still  more  from  the  fact  that  at  a  later  period 
quite  different  places  appear  as  Levitical  cities,  in  which  the 
Levites,  driven  from  their  first,  abodes,  had  taken  refuge. 

Keil  thinks,  that  as  the  Canananites  were  not  immediately 
destroyed  or  driven  out,  the  Levites  did  not  forthwith  come  into 
possession  of  their  cities,  but  temporarily  sojourned  elsewhere. 
Besides,  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  compelled  to  reside 
in  the  specified  cities.  Some  of  them  may  have  chosen  to  reside 
elsewhere ;  but  wherever  they  were,  they  were  dependent,  for 
their  support,  upon  the  tithes  and  offerings  of  the  people. 
These  considerations  relieve  the  alleged  difficulty. 

Possessed  a  stated  revenue.  Classed  icith  mendicants. 

1  have  pivpn  tlio  children  of  Levi  all  At  the  end  <if  three  years  thou  shalt 

the  tenth  in  Israel  for  an  inheritance,  bring  forth  all  the  tithe  of  thine  in- 

for  tlieir  service  which  they  serve,  even  crease  the  same  year,  and  shalt  lay  it 

the  service  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con-  up  within  thy  gates.    And  the  Levite, 

gregation.  .  .  .  The  tithes   of  the  chil-  (because  he  hath  no  part  nor  inherit- 

dren  of  Israel,  which   they  offer  as  a  ance  with  thee,)  and  the  stranger,  and 

heave-offering  unto    the  Lord,  I  have  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  which 

given  to  the  Levites  to  inherit.    Kum.  are  within  thy  gates,  shall  come,  and 

xviii.  21,  24.  shall  eat  and  be  satisfied.    Deut.  xiv. 

28,  29. 

Mr.  Plumptre  *  says,  "  As  if  to  provide  for  the  contingency 
of  failmg  crops  or  the  like,  and  the  consequent  inadequacy  of 
the  tithes  thus  assigned  to  them,  the  Levite,  not  less  than  the 
widow  and  the  orphan,  was  commended  to  the  special  kindness 
of  the  people." 

The  tithe  spoken  of  in  Deut.  xiv.  was  a  second,  or  "  vegetable" 
tithe,  and  not  the  one  appointed  for  the  support  of  the  priests 
and  Levites.  It  was  to  be  employed,  not  in  furnishing  a  main- 
tenance for  the  priests  and  Levites,  but  to  promote  charity  and 
brotherly  feeling,  and  to  gather  the  religious  life  and  associa- 
tions of  the  people  around  the  sanctuary.^  In  a  word,  the  Le- 
vite was  to  be  invited,  not  because  of  mendicancy  on  his  part, 
but  to  give  by  his  presence  a  kind  of  religious  character  to  the 
feast. 

*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  loc.  cit.         -  Bible  Corn.,  Introd.  to  Deut.  Sec.  v 
25 


290  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Lying. 

Countenanced.  Prohibited. 

And  the  kinj;  of  Kgypt  called  for  the  Thou   shalt   not   bear  false  witness 

midwives,  and  said  unto  them,  Why  against  thy  neighbor.    Ex.  xx.  16. 

have  ye  done  this  thing,  and  liave  saved  Lying  lips  are  abomination  to  the 

tlie  men-children  alive?    And  the  mid-  Loud.    Prov.  xii  22. 

wives  said  unto  Pharaoh,  Because  the  Wherefore  putting  away  lying,  speak 

Hebrew  women  are  not  as  the  Egyptian  every  man  truth  with  his  neighbor :  for 

women:  for  they  are   lively,  and  are  we  are  members  one  of  another.    Eph. 

delivered  ere  the    midwives    come  in  iv  25. 

imto  tl'.em.    Therefore  (iod  dealt  well  Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  that  ye 

with  the  midwives.    Ex.  i.  18-20.  have  put  otf  the  old  man  with  his  deeds. 

And  the  woman  took  the  two  men.  Col.  iii.  9. 

and   hid   them,   and  said  thus.  There  All  liars,  shall  have  their  part  in  the 

ciMne    men    unto    me,  but  I   wist  not  lake  which  burneth  with  lire  and  brim- 

wlience  they  were.     And  it  came  to  stone:  which  is  the  second  death.  Kev. 

•  ass  ahimt  the  time  of  shutting  of  the  xxi.  8. 
gate,  wlien  it  was  dark,  that  the  men 
went  out :  whither  the  men  went,  I  wot 
not.    Josh.  ii.  4,  5. 

Likewise  also  was  notKahab  the  har- 
lot justified  by  works.    Jas.  ii.  25. 

As  to  the  Hebrew  midwives ;  if  they  did  tell  a  lie,  it  was 
doue  to  avoid  committing  murder.  Of  two  evils,  they  chose 
the  less.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  they  were  guilty  of  false- 
liood.  The  king  seems  to  have  accepted  their  explanation  of  the 
case,  which  rested  upon  a  well-known  physiological  fact. 

Macdonald :  ^  "  In  proportion  as  the  sentence  of  toil  common 
to  the  race,  is  in  any  instance  mitigated  in  favor  of  the  female, 
her  own  peculiar  sentence  is  only  thereby  aggravated."  The 
testimony  of  the  rationalist.  Von  Bohlen,  ^  is  even  more  em- 
phatic as  to  the  immunity  from  pain,  enjoyed  in  certain  circum- 
stances by  females  inured  to  toil.  Murphy  suggests  that  the 
Hebrew  mothers,  knowing  Pharaoh's  order,  did  not  admit  the 
midwife,  and  she  did  not  intrude,  if  it  could  be  avoided,  until 
after  the  l)irth  had  occurred. 

As  to  llahab's  case,  several  things  are  to  be  considered. 

1.  Having  been  reared  in  the  darkness  of  heathenism,  she 
could  not  be  expected  to  understand  fully  the  wrong  of  false- 
hood. 

2.  She  was  influenced  by  a  desire  to  presen-e  her  own  life. 
Slie  felt  that  the  only  way  to  secure  this  end,  in  the  impending 

'  Introil.  to  Pent.  i.  S86.  -'  Illustrations  of  OeiicsLs,  ii.  CO. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  291 

overthrow  of  the  city,  would  be  to  place  the  victors  lander  pre- 
vious obligation  by  saving  the  lives  of  tlieir  spies. 

3.  James  says  she  was  ''  justified,"  not  by  her  words,  but  by 
her  "  works."  Keil :  The  course  she  adopted  was  a  sin  of 
weakness  which  was  forgiven  her  in  mercy  because  of  her 
faith. 

Several  other  cases  of  similar  nature,  are  discussed  elsewhere. 

Marriage. 

Approved.  Disparaged. 
And  the  Lokd  God  said,  It  is  not  It  is  good  for  a  man  not  to  touch  a 
po<id  that  tho  man  should  be  alone:  1  woman.  ...  I  say  therefore  to  the  nn- 
will  make  liim  a  help  meet  for  him.  married  and  widows,  It  is  good  for 
Gen.  ii.  18.  them  if  they  abide  even  as  I.  ...  I  snp- 
Whoso  tindeth  a  wife,  (indeth  a  good  pose  therefore  that  this  is  good  for  the 
thing,  and  obtaineth  favor  of  the  Lord,  present  distress,  /  saij,  that  it  is  good 
Trov.  xviii.  22.  for  a  man  so  to  be.  ...  Art  thou  loosed 
For  tills    cause   shall   a  man    leave  from  a  wife?  seek  not  a  wife. ...  Ho  that 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  is  unmarried,  careth  for  the  things  that 
his  wife:  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  iilcase 
flesh?     Matt.  xi.v.  5.  the  Lord.     But  he  that  is  married.  car- 
Let  every  man   have  his  own  wife,  eth  for  the  things  that  are  of  the  world, 
and  let  every  woman  have  her  own  how  he  may  please  !iis  wife.  .  .  .  He 
husband.    ICor.  vii.  2.  that  giveth  /ier  not  in  marriage  doeth 
Marriage  is  honorable  in  all.    Heb.  better.    1  Cor.  vii  1,  8,  26,  27,  82,  o3,  38. 
xiii.  4. 

These  last  passages  which  seem  to  discountenance  wedlock 
were  intended  for  a  specific  application.  Paul  foresaw  the  im- 
pending calamity  and  persecution  which  was  threatening  the 
Corintliian  church,  and  knowing  that  the  format  ion  of  new  ties 
of  affection  would  expose  men  to  increased  suffering,  he  advised 
against  it.  The  man  who  had  a  wife  and  children  could  be 
made  to  suffer  intensely  on  their  account ;  the  unmarried  man 
would  escape  this  augmented  pain.  "  I  think,  then,^'  says  Paul, 
"  that  it  is  best,  by  reason  of  the  trials  which  are  nigh  at  hand, 
for  all  to  be  unmarried." '  Alford  ^  says  that  the  language  was 
addressed  to  the  Corinthians  "  as  advising  them  under  cir- 
cumstances in  which  persecution  and  family  divisions  for  the 
Gospel's  sake,  might  at  any  time  break  up  the  relations  of 
life."  Nothing  in  this  advice  discourages  matrimony  abstractly 
considered. 

*  Conybeare's  translation.  *  Vol.  ii.  p.  519. 


292 


DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


With  a  brother's  widow,  evjoined.  Tlie  same  prohibited. 

If  brethren  dwell  tosrether,  and  one  And  if  a  man  shall  take  his  brother's 

of  them  (lie  and  liave  no  cliikl,  the  wife  wife,  it  is  an  unclean  thing:  he  hath 

of  the   dead   shall   not   marry  without  uncovered     his     brother's     nakedness; 

unto  a  stranpter:  her  husband's  brother  they  shall  be  childless.    Lev.  xx.  21. 
shall  go  in  unto  her,  and  take  her  to 
him  to  wife.    Deut.  xxv.  &. 

May  not  the  text  at  the  right  refer  to  the  divorced  wife  of  a 
living  brother  ?  It  i.s  provided  that,  after  a  woman  has  received 
"  a  bill  of  divorcement"  from  her  husband,  she  may  "  go  and  be 
another  man's  wife."  ^  Is  not  the  above  text  intended  to  pre- 
clude her  marriage  with  a  brother  of  her  recent  husband  ?  This 
seems  quite  possible. 

Keil, "  however,  maintains  that  the  prohibition  in  Leviticus 
only  refers  to  cases  in  which  the  deceased  brother  had  left  chil- 
dren ;  for  if  he  had  died  childless,  the  brother  not  only  might, 
but  was  required  to,  marry  his  sister-in-law.  That  is,  if  the 
widow  was  childless,  her  brother-in-law  must  marry  her ;  if  she 
had  children,  he  was  forbidden  to  do  so. 

Augustine,  Aben  Ezra,  Michaelis,  and  the  Septuagint  take  the 
words,  "  they  shall  be  childless "  as  denoting  that  their  children 
shall  be  reckoned  to  the  departed  brother,  they  shall  be  without 
posterity,  so  far  as  the  public  records  show.  In  a  civil  sense, 
they  would  be  childless. 

Obedience. 
Due  to  ndcrs.  Sometimes  to  be  loithheld. 

I  counsel  thee  to  keep  the  king's  com-        But  the  midwives  feared   God,  and 
mandment,  and  IIkU  in   regard  of  the    did   not   as   the;    king   of    Egypt  com 


oath  of  God.     Eccl.  viii.  2. 

Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the 
iiigher  powers.  For  tliere  is  no  power 
but  of  God  :  the  powers  that  be,  are  or- 
dained of  God.  Whosoever  therefore 
resistc'tli  the  power,  resistcth  the  orili- 
nance  of  (iod :  and  they  that  resist  shall 
reci'ive  to  themselves  damnation. 


manded  them.  .  .  .  Therefore  God  dealt 
well  with  the  midwives.  Ex.  i.  17,  20. 
iShadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego, 
answered  and  said  to  the  king,  O  Ne- 
buchadnezzar, we  are  not  careful  to 
answer  thee  in  this  matter.  .  .  .  Ue  it 
known  unto  thee,  ()  king,  that  we  will 
not  serve   thy   gods,  nor   worship   the 


VVMierefore  ye  must  needs  be  .subject,  golden  image  which  thou  hast  set  up. 

not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  con-  Dan.  iii.  If!,  18 

Bclence'sake.    llom.  xiii.  L  2,  6  Daniel,  which  is  of  the  children  of 

.Sulnnit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  the  captivity  of  Judah,  regardeth  not 

of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake:  whetherit  thee,  O  king,  nor  the  decree  that  thou 


be  to  the  king,  as  supreme;  or  unto 
governors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent 
by  him  for  tlie  punishment  of  evil- 
doers, and  for  the  t)raise  of  them  that 
do  well.     1  I'et.  ii.  l.'i,  U. 


'  Deut.  xxiv.  1,  2. 


hast  signed,  but  maketh  his  petition 
three  times  a  day.     Dan.  vi.  13. 

IJut  I'eter  anil  .lohn  answennl  and 
said  unto  them,  Whetlier  It  be  right  in 
tlie  siglit  of  (iod  to  hearken  unto  you 
more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye.  Acts 
iv.  19. 

We  ought  to  olx>y  God  rather  than 
man.    Acts  v.  29. 

«  On  Lev.  xvlii.  16. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  293 

Tlie  first  series  of  texts  involves  these  principles  : 

1.  That  civil  government  is  instituted  by  God  for  a  specific 
object,  the  encouragement  of  virtue  and  the  suppression  of  vice  ; 
*'  for  the  punishment  of  evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  well." 

2.  That  so  long  as  civil  government  keeps  in  its  proper  sphere, 
we  are  under  solemn  obligation  to  yield  obedience. 

From  the  second  series  may  be  legitimately  inferred, 

3.  That  civil  government  has  no  right  to  command  or  compel 
us  to  do  anything  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

4.  That  when  civil  government  transcends  its  proper  sphere, 
when  it  enjoins  unrighteous  acts,  it  then  becomes  our  imperative 
duty  to  refuse  obedience.  In  a  word,  the  "  higher  law  "  takes 
the  precedence  of  all  human  laws.  In  all  the  five  cases  at  the 
right,  obedience  to  unrighteous,  therefore  non-ohligatory,  com- 
mands, was  properly  withheld. 

Due  to  masters.  To  God  only. 

Servants,  oboy  in  all  things  7/o?(r  mas-  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thyGod, 

ters  according;  to  the  tlesh ;  not  with  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.    Matt, 

eye-service,  as  mon-jileasers:  but  in  sin-  iv.  10. 

gleness  of  heart,  fearing  God.    Col.  iii.  One  is  your  blaster,  ei'en  Christ;  and 

22.  all  ye  are  brethren.    Matt,  xxiii.  8. 

Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price;  be  not 

with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  ye  the  servants  of  men.    1  Cor.  vii.  23. 
gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward.    1  Fet. 
xi.  18. 

The  first  series  refers  to  civil  obedience,  or  obedience  in  secu- 
lar matters ;  the  last  relates  to  worship  and  religious  service. 

Rendered  to  the  scribes.  They  invst  be  shunned. 

The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in        Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  love  to 

Moses'  scat.    All  therefore  whatsoever  go  in  long  clotliiug,  and  /ore salutations 

they  bid  you  observe,  t/ial  observe  and  in  the  market  places.  .  .  .  Which  d(>vour 

do:  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works:  widows'    houses,  and  for  a    pretence 

for  they  say,  and  do  not.    Matt,  xxiii.  make  long  prayers:  these  shall  receive 

2,  3.  greater  damnation.    Mark  xii.  38,  40. 

The  idea  is,  Follow  their  precepts,  but  shun  their  practice. 
Do  as  they  say,  but  not  as  they  do. 

Offender  rebuked. 

Privately.  Publicly. 
Moreover  if  thy  brother  shall  tres-  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accu- 
pass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  sation,  but  before  two  or  three  wit- 
fault  between  thee  and  him  alone:  if  he  nesses.  Them  tliat  sin  rebuke  before 
shall  hear  thee,  tliou  hast  gained  thy  all,  that  others  also  may  fear.  1  Tim. 
brother.    Matt,  xviii.  15.  v.  19,  20. 

25* 


294  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

The  first  text  refers  to  private,  personal  wrongs,  the  second, 
to  open,  public  offences  against  peace  and  good  order. 

Alford,  on  the  first  text :  "  This  direction  is  only  in  case  of 
personal  offence  against  ourselves,  and  then  the  injured  person  is 
to  seek  private  explanation^  and  that  by  going  to  his  injurer, 
not  waiting  till  he  comes  to  apologize." 

This  commentator,  with  Iluther  and  most  others,  applies  the 
second  quotation  to  sinning  presbyters  or  "  elders,"  who  are  to 
be  openly  rebuked,  that  the  whole  church  may  fear  on  seeing 
the  public  disgrace  consequent  on  sin.  Ellicott  thinks  that  the 
present  participle  employed  directs  the  thought  towards  the 
habitually  sinful  character  of  the  offender,  and  his  need  of  an 
open  rebuke. 

Pleasing  of  Men. 

Practiced.  Condemned. 

Let  every  one  of  us  please  his  neiph-  For  do  I  now  persuade  men,  or  God? 

bor  for  his  good  to  edification.    Kom.  or  do  I  seek  to  please  men?  for  if  I  yet 

XV.  2.  pleased  men.  I  should  not  be  the  sor- 

To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that  1  vant  of  Christ.    Gal   i.  10. 

miirht  pain  the  weak:  I  am  made  all  Not  with  eye-service,  as  men-pleasers; 

thinps  to  all  men.  that  I  mipht  by  all  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ.    Eph. 

means  save  some.    1  Cor  ix.  22.  vi.  6. 

Even  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  thinr/s,  Even  so  we  speak;  not  as  pleasing 

not  seeking  mine  own  profit,  but  the  men.  but  God,  which  trieth  our  hearts. 

profit  of  many,  that  they  may  be  saved.  1  Thess.  ii.  4. 
1  Cor.  X.  33. 

Tn  the  first  texts,  we  see  that  Christian  gentleness  and  self- 
forgetfulness  which  is  ever  ready  to  waive,  so  far  as  is  proper, 
.  its  own  claims  and  preferences,  in  order  to  win  men  to  the 
truth. 

The  latter  texts  discountenance  that  time-serving,  sycophantic 
spirit  which  unhesitatingly  sacrifices  i)rinciple  to  popularity,  and 
to  llie  furtherance  of  its  own  sinister  ends. 

A.  Fuller :  ^  "  The  one  is  conduct  which  has  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  good  of  mankind  for  its  object ;  the  other  originates 
and  terminates  in  self.  The  former  is  that  sweet  inoffcnsive- 
ness  of  spirit  which  teaches  us  to  lay  aside  all  self-will  and  self- 
importance  The  latter  is  that  sordid  compliance  with  the  cor- 
ruptions of  human  nature,  of  which  flatterers  and  deceivers  have 

>  Works,  i.  671. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  295 

always  availed  themselves,  not  for  the  glory  of  God,  nor  the 
good  of  mcu,  but  for  the  promotion  of  their  own  selfish  designs." 

Poljigattty. 

Tolerated.  Virtually  proh  ibited. 

But  unto  the  sons  of  the  concubines  Let  thy  fountain  be  blessed;  and  re- 

which   Abraham  had,  Abraham  gave  joico  with  the  wife  of  tliy  youtli.    Let 

gifts.     Gen.  XXV.  6.  /wr  6e  a.s- the  loving  liind  and  pleasant 

Then  Jacob  rose  up,  and  set  his  sons  roe;  let  her  breasts  satisfy  thee  at  all 

and  his  wives  upon  camels.    (Jen.  xxxi.  times;  and  be  thou    ravished    always 

17.  with  her  love.     Prov.  v.  18.  19. 

if  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved.  Yet  is  she  thy  companion,  and   the 

and  another  hated.     Deut.  xxi.  15.  wife  of  thy  covenant.     And  did  not  he 

And  unto   David  were  sons  born  in  make  one?     Vet  had  he  the  residue  of 

Hebron:  and  his  first  born  was  Amnon,  the  spirit.     And  wherefore  one?    That 

of  Ahinoam  the  Jezreelitess.  ...  His  he  might  seek  a  godly  seed.    Therefore 

second.   Chileab.   of  Abigail.  .  .  .   The  take  heed  to  your  spirit,  and  let  none 

third,  Absalom  the  son  of  Maacali.  .  .  .  deal  treacherously  against  the  wite  of 

And  the  fourth,  Adonijah,  tlie  son  of  his  youth.     Mai.  ii.  14, 15. 

Hairgith;  and  the  tifth,  Shephatiah  the  Kor  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his 

sonofAbital.  And  the  sixth,  Ithream,  father  and  motlier,  and  cleave  to  his 

by  Eglah,  David's  wife    2  Sam.  iii.  2-5.  wite.    And   they   twain  shall    be   one 

And  David  comforted  Bath-sheba  Iiis  flesh:  so  then  thev  are  no  more  twaui, 

wife.    2Sam.  xii.  24.  but  one  flesh.     What  therefore,   (i<>d 

But  king  Solomon  loved  many  strange  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 

wom.en.  ...  And  he  had  seven  hundred  asunder.     Mark  x.  7-9. 

wives,  princesses,  and  three  hundred  Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife,  and 

concubines.    1  Kings  xi.  1-3.  let  every  woman  have  her  own  hus- 
band.    1  Cor.  vii.  2. 

Only  this  need  be  said,  —  that  God,  on  account  of  "the 
hardness  of  men's  hearts,"  suffered  polygamy  among  his  people 
for  a  time,  but  "  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so."  ^  And,  as 
previously  intimated,  the  patriarchs  must  be  judged  by  the 
degree  of  light  which  they  possessed.  Too,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  their  polygamy  differed  materially  from  the  "  free- 
love  "  systems  of  other  times.  In  polygamy,  each  wife  of  the 
"  much-married "  man  was  nevertheless  his  wife,  and,  together 
with  her  offspring,  entitled  to  be  cared  for  and  maintained  hj 
him.  Moreover,  a  "  concubine,"  in  those  days,  was  not  simply 
a  kept  mistress,  as  the  word  might  now  imply,  but  was  a  wife 
of  lower  ran^',  who  was  wedded  with  somewhat  less  than  the 
ordinary  formalities.  Dr.  Jahn"'^  says:  "Although  this  con- 
nection was,  in  fact,  a  marriage,  and  a  legitimate  one,  it  was 
not,  nevertheles.s,  celebrated  and  confirmed  by  the  cereraonies 
above  related."     So  Mr.  Newman^:  "A  concubine,  in  ancient 

»  Matt.  xix.  8.  ^  Bib.  Arcbacol.  Sec.  155. 

»  Hist,  of  Ilcb.  Monarchy,  pp.  102, 127. 


296  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

times,  was  only  a  wife  of  inferior  rank,  and  the  union  was  just 
as  permanent  as  with  a  wife."  The  latter  author  suggests  that 
the  usages  of  the  modern  court  of  Persia  point  to  the  conclusion 
that  Solomon  really  took  these  numerous  women  as  virtual 
hostages  for  the  good  behavior  of  their  fathers,  who  were 
chieftains  of  the  surroundmg  heathen  nations,  and  tributary  to 
him.     This  is  a  reasonable  suggestion. 

Poor  favored. 

Might  he  favored.  Must  not  be  favored. 

Blessed  is  he  that  considereth  the  Neither  shalt  thou  countenance  a 
poor.    Ps.  xli.  1.  poor  man  in  his  cause.    Ex.  xxiii.  3. 

He  that  hath  mercy  on    the  poor, 
happy  is  he.    Prov.  xiv.  21. 

The  first  two  texts  commend  the  exercise  of  benevolence  in 
cases  where  no  question  of  law  or  justice  is  involved ;  the  last 
teaches  that,  in  suits  between  man  and  man,  justice  must  be 
done.  The  judges  must  not  be  unduly  swayed  by  the  poor 
man's  pleading,  but  must  decide  the  matter  impartially. 

Priests'  diies. 

First-born  and  firstlings.  Otherwise  disposed  of. 

All  the  best  of  the  oil,  and  all  the  best  Thon  mayest  not  eat  within  thy  gates 
of  the  wine  and  of  the  wheat,  the  fir.*t-  the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  or  of  thy  wine,  or 
fruits  of  them  which  they  shall  otfer  of  thy  oil,  or  the  lir.stlings  of  thy  herds 
unto  the  Lord,  them  have  I  piven  thee,  or  of  thy  flock,  nor  any  of  thy  vows 
yf//(^/ whatsoever  is  first  ripe  in  the  land,  which  thou  vowest,  nor  thy  free-will- 
which  tliey  sliall  bring  unto  the  Loud,  offerinfjs,  or  heave- ofTering  of  thine 
Khali  be  thine.  .  .  •  Every  thinjf  that  liand.  r>ut  thou  must  eat  them  before 
oiicueth  the  matrix  in  all  flesh,  which  the  Loud  thy  God  in  the  place  which 
they  brins;  unto  the  Loud,  whether  it  be  the  ix>iiD  thy  (iod  shall  choose,  thou, 
of  men  or  beasts,  shall  be  thine.  ...  and  thy  son,  and  tliy  daajrhter,  and  tliy 
All  the  lieave-offerinjjs  of  the  holy  man-servant,  and  tliy  maid-servant,  and 
things,  which  the  children  of  Lsrael  the  Levite  that  is  witliin  tliy  gates. 
ofl'iT  unto  the  Lokd,  have  I  given  tliee,    Oeut.  xii.  17, 18. 

and  thy  sons  and  thy  daughters  with  Thou  shalt  do  no  work  with  the  first- 
thee,  by  a  statute  forever.  Mum.  xviii.  ling  of  thy  biilhtck,  nor  sliear  the  lirst- 
12,  13,  15,  19.  ling  of  thy  slieej).     Tliou   shalt  eat   it 

before  the  L<jud  thy  (jod  year  by  year 
in  the  place  wliich  the  Loud  shall 
choose,  thou  and  thy  household.  Deut. 
XV.  1,9,  20. 

Michaelis '  says  there  were  two  kinds  of  "  firstlings " ;  the 
first  beh)riging  to  the  priest  as  his  salary,  and  the  "second 
firstlings,"  as  he  styles  them,  belonging  to  the  altar,  and,  of 
course,  consumed  by  the  offerer  himself  and  his  guests.     He 

*  Mosaic  Laws,  iii.  146-149. 


ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  297 

defines  the  second  firstling  as  that  which  immediately  succeeded 
the  proper  firstling. 

Davidson  *  recognizes  a  "  second  sort  of  firstlings,  which 
were  to  he  employed  for  feast-offerings,  and  therefore  to  be 
consumed  by  the  offerer  himself  and  his  guests.  The  name 
denotes  the  animals  next  in  age  to  those  belonging  to  the  sacer- 
dotal salary.  Hence  the  firstlings  referred  to  were  additional 
to  such  as  appear  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers." 

Similarly  Dr.  Jahn.^  Keil  thinks  there  was  nothing  in  the 
earlier  law  which  would  preclude  the  priest's  allowing  the 
persons  who  presented  the  firstlings  to  take  part  in  the  sacri- 
ficial meals,  or  handing  over  to  them  some  portion  of  the  flesh 
which  belonged  to  himself  to  hold  a  sacrificial  meal. 

Produce  of  seventh  yeat\ 

For  the  poor.  For  owner  and  his  family. 

And  six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  But  in  the  seventh  year  slial!  be  a 
land,  and  slialt  gather  in  the  fruits  sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land,  a  sab- 
thereof.  But  the  seventh  year  thou  bath  for  the  Lord:  thou  slialt  neither  . 
shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  still;  tliat  the  sow  thy  field,  nor  prune  thy  vineyard, 
poor  of  thy  people  may  eat:  and  what  That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord 
they  leave  the  boasts  of  the  field  shall  of  thy  harvest,  thou  shalt  not  reap, 
eat.  In  like  manner  thou  shalt  deal  neither  gather  the  grapes  of  thy  vine 
with  thy  vineyard,  and  with  thy  oMve-  undressed  :  far  it  is  a  year  of  rest  unto 
yard.     Ex.  xxiii.  10, 11.  the  land.    And  the  sabbath  of  the  land 

shall  be  meat  for  you :  for  thee,  and  for 
thy  servant,  and  for  thy  maid,  and  for 
thy  hired  servants,  and  fir  thy  stranger 
that  sojourneth  with  thee.  Lev.  xxv. 
4-6. 

The  first  quotation,  with  its  context,  teaches  that  the  spon- 
taneous yield  of  the  seventh  year  is  to  be  left  for  the  poor,  and  for 
the  wild  beasts.  The  owner  of  the  land  is  neither  to  cultivate 
it,  nor  to  meddle  with  its  produce,  for  that  year.^  From  the 
second  quotation  we  learn  that  the  "  sabbath  of  the  land  "  was  to 
maintain  the  owner  and  his  family,  with  the  flocks  and  herds. 
In  Leviticus  xxv.  21,  22,  is  promised  a  largely  increased  crop 
^"  fruit  for  three  years"  —  in  the  sixth  year.  It  is,  we  think, 
this  surplus  —  termed,  in  the  seventh  verse,  "  the  increase  there- 
of,"—  and  not  the  mere  spontaneous  produce  of  the  year  of 

»  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  353,  -  Bib.  Archacol,  Sec.  388,  889. 

^  Such  aeems  the  plain  import  of  Lev.  xxv.  5  and  20. 


298  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

rest,  which  is  designated  as  "  the  sabbath  of  the  land."  In  other 
words,  it  is  this  surplus  alone  which  is  to  serve  the  owner  and 
his  household  during  the  year  of  rest,  while  all  that  grows  dur- 
ing that  year  is  to  be  relinquished  to  the  destitute. 

KeU  takes  the  somewhat  different  view  that  the  produce 
arising  without  tilling  or  sowing  was  to  be  a  common  good  for 
man  and  beast.  According  to  Exodus,  it  was  to  belong  to  the 
poor  and  needy,  but  the  owner  was  not  forbidden  to  partake  of 
it  also,  so  that  here  is  no  discrepancy. 

Property  in  man. 

One  man  oions  another.  All  men  are  brethren. 

And  if  a  man  smito  his  servant,  or  And  hatli  made  of  one  blood  all  na- 
his  maid,  with  a  rod.  and  he  die  under  tions  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
his  hand;  he  shall  be  surely  punished,  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the 
Kotwithstanding,  if  he  continue  a  day  times  before  aiijjointed,  and  the  bounds 
or  two,  he  shall  not  be  punished:  for  of  their  habitation.  Acts  xvii.  20. 
he  is  his  money.     Ex.  xxi.  20,  21 

And  ye  shall"  take  them  as  an  inher- 
itance for  your  children  after  you,  to 
inherit  thi'infor  a  possession,  they  shall 
be  your  bondmen  for  ever.  Lev.  xxv.  46. 

On  account  of  the  "  hardness  of  men's  hearts,"  slavery,  like 
polj'gamy,  was  suffered  for  a  time ;  but  the  Mosaic  code  was  so 
shaped  as  to  mitigate  its  evils,  and  secure  its  final  extinction. 
It  was  doubtless  better  thus  to  bring  about  its  gradual  abolition 
than  to  uproot  it  by  a  sudden  convulsion.  Slavery  among  the 
Hebrews  was  of  a  much  milder  type  than  among  their  contem- 
poraries. .  In  this  opinion  Dr.  Jahn  concurs.  Michaelis  *  says 
that  ]\Ioses  "  permitted  slavery,  but  under  restrictions  by  which 
its  rigors  were  remarkably  mitigated,  and  particularly  in  the 
case  of  Israelitish  citizens  becoming  subjected  to  it." 

lieslstanee. 

Exemplified.  Interdicted. 

Then  said  lie  unto  them.  Hut  now,  he  I'ut  I  say  unto  you,  'I'liatye  resist  not 

that  hath  a  purse,  let  him  take  <7,  and  evil:  but  whosoever  shall  smite  tliee  on 

likewise /(/.s  scrij):  and  he  that  hath  no  thy  ri;;ht  cheek,  turn  to  liim  the  other 

sword,  let   him   sell    liis   {jarnient,  and  also.     .Matt.  v.  39. 

buy  one      Luke  xxii.  .'^ti  Tlien    said   .lesus  unto  him.    Tut    up 

And  when  he  li:i<l  made  a  scourpe  of  ajrain  lliy  ssvord  iutu  his  ])lrtce:  for  all 

small   crd-i,  he   drove   them  all  out  of  thev  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish 

till'   temple,   and    the    sheep,   and    the  wit)i  the  .sword.     iMatt.  xxvi.  62. 
o.xeii ;  and    poured    out    the    chandlers' 
money,  and  overthrew  the  tables.  John 
n.  16. 

'  Mosaic  Laws,  ii.  IT'?. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  299 

We  have  previously  seen  that  the  first  text  is  equivalent  to 
a  declaration  that,  m  the  changed  circumstances  of  the  disciples, 
"  self-defense  and  self-provision  would  henceforward  be  neces- 
sary."    The  passage  sanctions  self-defense  but  not  aggression. 

Alford  says  the  next  passage  should  read,  "  He  drove  all  out 
of  the  temple,  both  the  sheep  and  the  oxen."  The  "  scoui-ge" 
was  applied  to  the  brutes,  not  to  their  owners. 

Barnes  takes  the  original  of  INIatt.  v.  39,  as  meaning.  Do 
not  set  yourselves  against  one  who  has  injured  you.  We  are 
not  to  cherish  feelings  of  obstinate  and  implacable  resentment. 

The  last  text  means,  as  noted  elsewhere,  that  those  who  take 
the  sword  in  ojiposition  to  legal  authority,  as  Peter  contemplated 
doing,  or  against  innocence,  as  the  Jews  were  about  to  do, 
should  perish  by  a  violent  death. 

Retaliation. 

Allowed.  Discountenanced. 

And  if  any  mi.'^chief  follow,  then  But  I  say  unto  you  which  hear,  Love 
thou  shalt  Rive  life  for  life.  Eye  for  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  which 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  hate  you.  Bless  them  that  curse  you, 
foot  for  foot.  Burning  for  burnini,',  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully 
wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe,  use  you.  And  unto  him  tliat  smiteth 
Ex.  xxi.  23-25.  thee  on  the  one  cheek  offer  also  the 

other;  and  him  that  taketli  away  thy 
cloak  forbid  not  to  take  thy  coat  also. 
Luke  vi  27-29. 

IVIichaelis  *  and  Jahn  ^  think  that  the  law  of  Moses  addresses 
the  perpetrator  of  the  wrong,  admonishing  him  of  the  satisfac- 
tion he  must  render  for  the  wrongs  inflicted  by  him.  Christ, 
on  the  other  hand,  addresses  the  injured  party,  forbidding  him, 
as  an  individual  to  give  vent  to  his  vindictive  feelings  and  take 
the  retribution  into  his  own  hands,  instead  of  waiting  for  the 
due  process  of  law.  Alford  observes  that  "  our  Lord  does  not 
contradict  the  Mosaic  law,  but  expands  and  fulfils  it,  declaring 
to  us  that  the  necessity  for  it  would  be  altogether  removed  in 
the  complete  state  of  that  kingdom  which  lie  came  to  establish." 
Warington  ^  says.  "  On  what  principle  are  cases  of  this  kind 
to  be  explained  ?     Surely  by  regarding  such  laws  as  having 

'  Mosaic  Laws,  ill.  473,  471.  -  Bib.  Archacol.  Sec.  256. 

'■'  On  Inspiration,  p.  252. 


800  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

been,  when  given,  especially  adapted  to  the  people  and  the  times, 
and  for  ,  these  necessary ;  but  as  being  for  later  days  and  other 
people  not  necessary  and  unadapted,  and  therefore  abrogated." 

Hobhery. 

Forbidden.  Countenanced. 

Thou  Shalt  not  steal.    Ex.  xx.  15.  And  I  will  give  this  people  favor  in 

Thou  Shalt  not  defraud  thy  neighbor,    the  sight  of  the  Egyptians :  and  it  shall 

neither  rob  him.    Lev.  xix.  13.  come  to  pass,  that,  wlion  ye  go,  ye  shall 

The  wicked  borroweth,  and  payeth    not  go  empty.    But  every  woman  shall 

not  again.    I's.  xxxvii.  21.  borrow  of  her  neighbor,  and  of  hor  that 

That  no  77ia?i  go  beyond  and  defraud    sojourneth  in  her  house,  jewels  of  silver, 

his  brother  in  an(/ matter:  because;  that    and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment:   and 

the  Eord  is  the  avenger  of  all  such,    ye  shall  put  them  upon  your  sons,  and 

1  Thess.  iv.  6.  upon  your  daughters :  and  ye  shall  spoil 

the  Egyptians.     Ex.  iii.  21,  22. 

And  tlie  children  of  Israel  did  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  Moses :  and  they 
borrowed  of  the  Egyptians  jewels  of 
silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment. 
And  the  Loud  gave  the  pe(>pl('  favor  in 
the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they 
lent  unto  them  such  thinys  as  they  re- 
quired: and  they  spoiled  the  Egyptians. 
Ex.  xii.  35,  36. 

The  point  of  the  objection  is,  that  the  Israelites  defrauded 
the  Egyptians,  by  borrowing,  but  neglecting  to  repay.  A  re- 
cent writer  styles  their  conduct  "  immoral,"  and  adds,  "It  makes 
no  diflference  wliether  the  verb  translated  borrow  means  ask  or 
demand.  The  representation  made  to  the  Egyptians  by  the 
Israelites  when  they  borrowed  or  asked  the  jewels  was,  that 
they  were  going  a  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness  to 
saci'ifice  to  the  Lord  God.  They  conveyed  the  impression  that 
they  were  about  to  return."  Knobel  also  asserts  that  it  was 
their  intention  to  deceive  the  king.  To  this  objection,  Augus- 
tine,^ Ilengstenberg,^  and  Keil  reply:  God  knew  the  hard  heart 
of  Pharaoh,  and  therefore  directed  that  no  more  should  be  asked 
at  first  than  he  must  either  grant  or  display  the  hardness  of 
his  heart.  Had  he  consented,  God  would  then  have  made  known 
to  him  his  whole  design,  and  demanded  that  His  people  should 
be  allowed  to  depart  altogether.  But  when  Pharaoh  scornfully 
rofuHcd  the  first  and  smaller  request,  Moses  was  instructed  to 
demand  the  entire  departure  of    Israel  from  the  laud.     The 

'  Qiiaest.  13  in  Ex.  '^  Gen.  of  Pent.,  ii.  417-482. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  301 

modified  request  was  an  act  of  mercy  to  Pharaoh,  and  had  he 
granted  it,  Israel  would  not  have  gone  beyond  it. 

"We  may  add  that,  on  the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  their 
three  days'  journey,  negotiations  would  doubtless  have  been  en- 
tered into  for  their  final  departure.  It  should  be  observed  that 
Moses'  demand  increased  in  the  same  projjortion  as  Pharaoh's 
hardening. '  Towards  the  close,  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
expectation,  on  either  side,  that  the  Israelites  would  return. 
After  the  smiting  of  the  first-born,  the  Egyptians  were  desirous 
to  get  rid  of  the  Israelites  at  any  price.  Hence,  they  are  said 
to  have  "  thrust  them  out  altogether,"  and  to  have  been  "  urgent" 
upon  them  to  depart  "  in  haste."  ^  So  far  at  the  last  from  any 
promise  or  expectation  of  their  return,  the  Egyptians  were  only 
too  glad  to  be  relieved  of  their  presence. 

Michaelis^  has  a  peculiar  explanation  of  the  "  borrowmg." 
He  thinks  the  Hebrews  borrowed  the  articles  with  the  honest 
intention  of  restormg  them  ;  but,  in  the  haste  of  their  midnight 
departure,  driven  out  by  the  pressing  command  of  the  king,  they 
had  no  opportunity  to  do  this.  Hence,  they  took  the  articles 
with  them,  with  the  view  to  restore  them  as  soon  as  possible. 
In  a  day  or  two,  the  Egyptians  made  war  upon  the  Israelites. 
This  act  of  hostility,  this  "  breach  of  the  peace,"  changed  the 
relations  between  the  two  parties,  and  justified  the  Israelites  in 
detaining  the  property  of  their  enemies  as  a  kind  of  "  contra- 
band of  war." 

Hence,  he  concludes  that  the  act  of  the  Israehtes  was  no 
robbery  of  the  Egyptians,  but  simply  a  detention  of  their  pro- 
perty after  the  breach  of  peace  with  the  Israelites. 

Ewald*  maintains  that  since  Israel  could  not  return  to  Egypt 
after  Pharaoh's  treachery  and  the  incidents  on  the  Red  Sea, 
and  therefore  was  not  bound  to  return  the  borrowed  goods,  the 
people  kept  them  and  despoiled  the  Egyptians  of  them.  This 
sagacious  critic  sees  in  this  turn  of  affairs  a  kind  of  "  divine 

»  See  Ex.  viii.  1,  27;  x.  25,  26.  -  Compare  Ex.  xi.  1 ;  xii.  31-33. 

^  Com.  on  Mosaic  Laws,  iii.  45-47.        *  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  66. 


302  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

recompense,"  a  piece  of  "  high  retributive  justice,  far  above 
human  inequalities,  that  those  w^ho  had  long  been  oppressed  in 
Egypt  should  now  be  forced  to  borrow  the  necessary  vessels 
from  the  Egyptians,  and  be  obliged  by  Pharaoh's  subsequent 
treachery  to  retain  them,  and  thus  be  indemnified  for  long 
oppression." 

But  there  is  another  view  of  the  case.  The  Hebrew  word, 
shaal,  means,  according  to  Fuerst  and  Gesenius,  to  os/c  or  demand, 
as  well  as  to  borrow.  It  is  used  in  the  former  sense  in  Ps.  ii. 
8,  "  Ask  of  me,"  etc.  There  is  no  good  reason  why  we  should 
not  adopt  this  rendering  in  Exodus.  We  are  told  that  "  the 
Lord  gave  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,"  also 
that  Moses  was  "  very  great "  in  their  sight. '  The  awe  which 
they  felt  for  Moses,  as  also  for  the  Israelites  so  signally  favored 
of  God,  induced  the  Egyptians  to  comply  with  the  demands  of 
the  Hebrews  to  that  extent,  that  the  latter  "  spoiled,"  that  is, 
impoverished,  the  former.  Hengstenberg :  "  They  had  spoiled 
Israel ;  now  Israel  carries  away  the  spoil  of  Egypt."  This 
author,  with  Rosenmiiller,  Lilienthal,  Tholuck,  Winer,  Lange, 
Murphy.  Keil,  Wordsworth,  and  a  host  of  critics,  understands 
that  the  Hebrews  asked  and  received  these  things  simply  a^  gifts. 
And  Josephus  ^  corroborates  this  view,  saying  of  the  Egyptians, 
"  They  also  honored  the  Hebrews  with  gifts ;  some  in  order  to 
secure  their  sj^eedy  departure,  and  others  on  account  of  neigh- 
borly intimacy  with  them."  This  explanation  relieves  the 
entire  difficulty. 

Slavery  and  ojipression. 

Ordained.  Forbidden. 

And   ho  paid,  Cursed   be  Canaan;  a  And  he  that  stoaloth  a  man,  and  spU- 

Forvant  «if  servants  shall  lie  be  uuto  his  eth  liim.  or  if  lie  lie  found  in  liis  hand, 

bretlircn.     den.  ix.  25.  he  sliall  surely  be  i)ut  to  death.     Kx. 

I'.oth   tliy   bund-men,  and  thy  bond-  xxi.  16. 

maids,  wliicli  tliou  slialt  liavp,  Khnll  be  Thou  slialt  neitlier  vex  a  stranper, 

of    the    lietUhen    tliul  lire  r  >uiid  al)out  nor  oppress  him  :  (or  ye  were  strangers 

you;  of  tliem   sliall   ye   buy  bond-men  in  tlie  land  of  Kpypt.     Kx.  .xxii.  21. 

and  bond-maids.     I,ev.  xxv.  44.  To  undo  the  lii'avy  buidens,  and  to 

And  I   will  sell  your  sons  and  your  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  that  ye 

daiitfliters  into  l>ie  hanii  of  the  children  break  every  yoke?     Isa   lviil.6. 
of  .ludali.  and  they  shall  sell  them  to 
the  bubeuns.    Juel  iii.  8. 

'  Kx.  xi.  3.  '■'  Antiq.  ii.  14,  C  (Bckker's  Greek  edition). 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  303 

As  to  Canaan,  we  have  elsewhere  seen  that  he,  being,  as  the 
Hebrew  requires,  the  "  youngest  of  Noah's  family,"  was  proba- 
bly the  very  one  indicated  as  guilty  of  some  unnamed  indignity 
to  the  sleeping  patriarch, '  and  hence  was  deservedly  punished 
for  his  crime. 

Leviticus  refers  to  a  mild  form  of  servitude  among  the  Is- 
raelites.    Joel  threatens  captivity  as  a  punishment  for  sin. 

Exodus  denounces    the    kidnapping  and  oppressing  of  free 

persons,  foreigners   or  otherwise.^     Isaiah   admonishes  against 

illegal  oppression,  rather  than  against  that  form  of  servitude 

recognized  in  and  regulated  by  the  law. 

Hebrew  slavery  permitted.  Prohibited. 

If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  servant,  six      And  if  thy  brother  ^Aa^e/tre^/e/A  by  thee 

years  he  shall  serve :  and  in  the  seventh    be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee: 

he  shall  go  out  free  for  nothing.    Ex.    thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a 

xxi.  2.  bond-servant.    But  as  a  hired  servant, 

and  as  a  sojourner  he  shall  be  with  thee, 
and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of 
jubilee.  .  .  .  Over  your  brethren  the 
children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one 
over  another  with  rigor.  Lev.  xxv.  39, 
40,46. 

The  latter  passages  do  not,  as  De  Wette  seems  to  think,  pro- 
hibit the  purchase  of  a  Hebrew  slave ;  they  merely  provide 
that  the  service  of  such  should  be  more  lenient  than  that  of  a 
stranger.  Even  a  foreigner  might  buy  a  Hebrew  slave,  but 
always  with  liberty  of  redemption.^  A  gentile  slave  could  be 
held  for  life-long  service. 

Emancipation  m  the  seventh  year.  In  the  fiftieth  year. 

And  if  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man.  And  if  tliy  brother  thai  dwelletk  by 

or   a    Hebrew    woman,  be  sold   unto  thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto 

thee,  and  serve  thee  six  years;  then  in  thee.  ...   He  shall   1)p  with   tliee,  a/irf 

the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  him  go  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  juhilw. 

free  from  thee.    Deut.  xv.  12.  And  ilien  shall   he  depart  from  thee. 

Lev.  xxv.  39,40,41. 

That  is,  his  servitude  would  cease  at  the  end  of  the  six  years, 
or  at  the  end  of  the  jubilee-period,  ickichever  was  nearest.  For 
example,  a  man  sold  under  ordinary  circumstances  must  serve 
six  full  years;  but  a  man  sold  in  the  forty-sixth,  would  go  out 
in  the  fiftieth,  year  of  the  jubilee-period,  thus  serving  less  than 
six  years'  time. 

'  Gen.  ix.  24.  *  Dent.  xxiv.  7.  ''  Ix>v.  xxv.  47-54. 


304  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

Maid-servant  emancipated.  Not  emancipated. 

And  if  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man,  And  if  a  man  sell  his  daughter  to  be 

or  a  Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto  thee,  a  maid-servant,  she  shall  not  jro  out  as 

and  serve  thee  six  years;  then  in  the  the  men-servants  do.  .  .  .  And  if  he  do 

seventh  year  thou  shall  let  him  go  free  not  these  three  unto  her,  then  shall  she 

from  thee.    Deut.  xv.  12.  go  out  free  without  money.    Ex.  xxi. 

7,11. 

Michaelis  ^  and  Jahn  think  that  the  first  text  is  a  modification 
of  the  original  law,  with  a  view  to  a  further  mitigation  of  the 
evils  of  slavery.  Hengstenberg  ^  thinks  the  case  specified  in 
Exodus,  was  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  It  would  seldom 
occur  that  a  father  would  sell  his  daughter  into  servitude,  and 
never  but  with  the  expectation  that  she  should  become  a  wife, 
though  of  the  second  rank.  The  whole  matter  of  the  sale  was 
arranged  with  this  object  in  view.  Nachmanides  ^  says  she  did 
not  go  out  unconditionally  as  the  man-servant  did.  He  went 
out  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  year,  without  let  or  hinderance.  She, 
on  the  contrary,  might  be  espoused  by  her  master,  or  betrothed 
to  his  son,  in  which  case  she  did  not  go  out  at  all,  except  for 
ill-treatment  or  neglect.     Similarly  Keil  and  others. 

Saalschiitz  *  maintains  that  Deut.  xv.  refers  to  an  actual 
maid-servant  whom  her  owner  sells  to  another,  and  who  gains, 
by  this  transaction,  the  privilege  of  going  out  free  after  six 
years'  service  with  the  second  master. 

In  Ex.  xxi,  the  reference  is,  he  thinks,  to  one  who  has  pre- 
viously been  free,  but  whom  her  father  sells  into  servitude  with 
certain  stipulations  and  gua»antees  as  to  her  future  position  and 
rights  in  the  family. 

Sons  sharing  estate. 

Equally.  Unequally. 

Wherefore  she  said  unto  Abraham,  But  he  shall  acknowledge  the  son  of 
Cast  out  this  bondwoman  and  her  son  :  the  liated /or  the  lirstborn,  by  giving 
for  the  son  of  this  bondwoman  shall  him  a  double  portion  of  all  that  he 
not  bo  heir  with  my  son,  eoen  with  hath:  for  he  i:s  the  beginning  of  his 
Isaac.    Gen.  xxi.  10.  strength;  the  riglit  of  the  lirst-born  is 

his.    L)eut.  xxi.  17. 

A  late  writer  says :  "  According  to  the  Deuteronomist  the 
first-born  was  to  receive  a  double  portion ;  formerly  the  sons 

'  Vol.  ii.  p.  180.  -  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  SGI. 

'  Conciliator,  i.  178.  *  See  in  13il).  Saera,  xix.  82-75. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  305 

shared  alike."  lie,  however,  gives  no  quotation  sustaining  the 
latter  part  of  his  statement,  and  we  have  not  been  able  to  find 
any  which  is  conclusive.  Even  Gen.  xxi.  10,  quoted  above, 
does  not  seem  satisfactory. 

Isaac  received  "  all "  of  his  father's  property,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  some  "  gifts "  to  his  half-brothers.^  Joseph  virtually 
enjoyed  the  rights  of  primogeniture ;  for  his  two  sons  were 
reckoned  among  his  father's  heirs,  and  on  precisely  the  same 
footing  with  them.^ 

Stranger,  —  treatment. 

Loved  as  a  brother.  Not  thus  loved. 

But  the  stranfter  that  dwelleth  with  Of  a  foreigner  thou  mayest  exact  it 
you  shall  be  unto  you  as  one  born  ag-am;  but  ?/(a<  which  is  thine  with  thy 
amoD^  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  brother  thy  hand  shall  release.  Deut. 
thyself;    for  ye  were  strangers  in  the    xv.  3. 

land  of  Egypt.    Lev.  xix.  34.  Unto  a  stranger  thou  mayest  lend 

upon  usury;  but  unto  thy  brother  thou 
shalt  not  lend  upon  usury.  Deut.  xxiii. 
20. 

The  first  text  need  not  be  pressed  as  prescribing  that  abso- 
lutely no  distinction  shall  be  made  between  a  foreigner  and  a 
native-born  Israelite. 

Or,  perhaps,  the  first  text  alludes  to  a  stranger  who  has 
become  a  proselyte  ;  the  other  two  to  one  who  is  not  such. 

Under  common  regulations.  Some  license  allowed. 

One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  any  thing  that 

born,  and  unto  the  stranger  that  so-  dieth  of  itself:  thou  .shalt  give  it  unto 

journeth  among  you.     Kx.  xii.  49.  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy  gates,  that 

Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  he  may  cat  it;  or  thou  mavest  sell  it 

and  my  judgments,  and  shall  not  com-  unto .  an   alien;  for  thou   art   an   holy 

mit  an;/  of  these  abominations;  neither  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.    Deut. 

any  of  your  own  nation,  nor  any  stran-  xiv.  21. 
per  that  sojourneth  among  you.    Lev. 
xviii.  26. 

In  respect  to  matters  of  fundamental  importance,  foreign- 
born  and  native  citizens  were  under  the  same  law. 

In  matters  of  trivial  consequence  the  foreigner  was  left 
more  at  liberty.  There  was  no  forcible  proselytism  under  the 
Mosaic  law. 

'  Gen.  XXV.  5,  6. 

*  Compare  Gen,  xlviii.  5;  Num.  i.  10;  1  Chron.  v.  1,  2;  Ezek.  xlvii.  13; 
xlviii.  4,  5. 

26* 


306  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


Usury  exacted. 

Of  no  poor  man.  Of  no  Hebrew. 

If  thou  lend  money  ton?!)/ rjfmv  peo-       Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to 

Ele  that  is  i)oor  by  thee,  thou" shalt  not    thy  brother;  usury  of  money,  usury  of 
e  to  him  as  an  usurer,  neither  shalt    victuals,  usury  of  anythinj;  that  is  lent 
thou  lay  upon  him  usury.   Ex.  xxii.  25.    upon  usury.    Deut.  xxiii.  19. 

Micliaelis *  says  that,  "in  process  of  time,  a  prohibition 
became  necessary,  otherwise  no  poor  person  would  ever  have 
got  any  loan."  Jahn  ^  thinks  that  a  difiiculty  arose  in  deter- 
mining who  was  to  be  considered  a  poor  person ;  hence  it 
became  necessary  to  extend  the  prohibition  to  all  Hebrews,  so 
that  henceforth  interest  could  be  taken  only  of  foreigners. 

Davidson^  concedes  the  wisdom  of  this  arrangement,  and 
adds :  "  It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  would  limit  then-  commerce 
with  other  nations,  and  by  so  doing  preserve  their  religious 
faith  from  contamination." 

Wicked,  —  treatment. 

Hated.  Loved. 

Do  not  I  hate  them,  O  Lord,  that  But  love  ye  your  enemies,   and  do 

hate  thee?  and  am  not  1  prioved  with  good.    Luke  vi.  35. 

those  that  ri.<e  up  ajrainst  thee?    1  hate  Bless    them    which    persecute    you: 

them  with  perfect  hatred  :  1  count  them  bless,  and  curse  not.  Rom.  xii.  14. 
mine  enemies.    Ps.  cxxxix.  21,  22. 

The  first  texts  are  simply  an  intense  Oriental  way  of  ex- 
pressing David's  utter  abhorrence  of  the  vile  principles  and 
conduct  of  the  wicked.  Viewed  simply  as  depraved  and  corrupt, 
he  "  hated "  tliem ;  viewgd  as  human  beings,  he  loved  them, 
and  desired  their  repentance  and  reformation. 

Calvin :  "  Because,  devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  piety,  he 
thoroughly  abhorred  all  impiety." 

Justified  improperbj.  Justified  properbj. 

He  that  justifieth  the  wicked,  and  he  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but 
tha*  condemneth  the  just,  even  they  believeth  on  him  that  justitieth  the  un- 
botii  arc  abomination  to  the  Louu.  p. )dly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  nghteous- 
I'rov.  xvii.  15.  ness.    Kom.  iv.  5. 

He  that  saith  unto  the  wicked.  Thou 
art  righteous;  him  shall  the  people 
curse.     I'rov.  xxiv.  24. 

Woe  unto  them  that  call  evil  pood, 
and  pood  evil.  Which  jn'^'if)'  the  wick- 
ed for  reward.    Isa.  v.  20,  2a. 

1  Vol.  ii.  p.  388.  ^  Bib-  ArchaeoL  Sec.  251. 

'  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  345. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  307 

In  the  first  instances,  the  term  "  justify  "  denotes  the  acquittal 
of  the  wicked  through  bribes ;  helping  the  criminal  to  escape 
his  just  deserts.  In  the  last  case,  the  term  implies  the  gracious 
act  of  God  in  pardoning  the  sinner,  and  cleansing  him  from 
guilt. 

Witchcraft,  —  treatment. 
Punished.  Contemned. 

Thou  Shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live        T?ut  refuse    profane  and  old  wives' 
Ex.  xxii.  18.  fables,  and  exercise  thyself  ra/Zier  unto 

A  man  also  or  a  woman  that  hath  a    godliness.    1  Tim.  iv.  7. 
familiar  spirit,  or  that  is  a  wizard,  shall        Keep  that  wliich  is  committed  to  thy 
surely  be  put  to  death.    Lev.  xx.  27.         trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain  bab- 
blings.   1  Tim.  vi.  20. 

A  critic  whom  we  have  quoted  often,  objects  to  the  Penta- 
teuch, that  it  "  sanctioned  the  belief  in  witchcraft  by  enjoining 
a  wizard  to  be  put  to  death ;  whereas  we  know  that  such  belief 
was  superstition."     To  this  it  is  a  sufficient  reply,  — 

1.  Admitting  that  the  terms  "  witchcraft,"  "  wizard,"  and  the 
like,  were  used  in  their  modern  signification,  as  implying  the 
"  possession  of  supernatural  or  magical  power  by  compact  with 
evil  spirits,"  it  would  follow,  upon  theocratic  principles,  that  he 
who  so  much  as  pretends  to  exercise  this  power,  —  thereby  de- 
ceiving the  people,  and  seducing  them  from  their  allegiance  to 
God, —  would  be  worthy  of  death.  The  law  does  not  decide 
as  to  the  validity  of  his  claims,  or  the  success  of  his  attempts ;  but 
simply  says,  "  The  man  or  woman  who  assumes  to  exercise 
witchcraft  shall  be  put  to  death." 

2.  But  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  foregoing  terms 
do  not  bear,  in  the  Scriptures,  their  modern  meaning.  As  Sir 
Walter  Scott  ^  observes  :  The  sorcery  or  witchcraft  of  the  Old 
Testament  resolves  itself  mto  a  trafficking  with  idols,  and  asking 
counsel  of  false  deities  ;  or,  in  other  words,  into  idolatry.  This 
opinion  is  entertained  by  many  other  writers ;  as,  for  example, 
Dr.  Graves,^  Mr.  Denham,^  and  INIr.  R.  S.  Poole.*     The  latter 

^  "  Letters  on  Dcmonolo-Jiy  and  Witi-hcrafc;  "  Letter  3. 
*Lect.  on  Pent.  i.  190  (Second  edition). 
'  Kitto,  ill.  1120  (Alexander's  edition). 
*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "  Mufjic." 


308  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

author  regards  it  as  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Bible  that 
from  first  to  last  it  warrants  no  trust  or  dread  of  charms  and 
incantations  as  capable  of  producing  evil  consequences  when 
used  against  a  man.  In  the  Psalms,  the  most  personal  of  all 
the  l)ooks  of  Scripture,  there  is  no  prayer  to  be  protected  against 
magical  influences.  The  believer  prays  to  be  delivered  from 
every  kind  of  evil  that  could  hm't  the  body  or  soul,  but  he  says 
nothing  of  the  machinations  of  sorcerers. 

These  facts  go  to  prove  that  the  modern  notion  of  witchcraft, 
which  the  above-named  critic  justly  characterizes  as  "  supersti- 
tion," was  entirely  unknown  to  the  early  Hebrews.  Witchcraft 
with  them  and  thi-oughout  the  Scrij^jtures,  was  a  species  of  idol- 
atry.^ So  that  the  critic's  objection  above  quoted,  falls  pointless 
to  the  ground. 

Woman,  —  condition  and  rights, 

Shoitld  be  in  subjection.  May  bear  rule. 

Tliy  dosirc  afiall  be  to  thy  husband,  And  Deborah,  a  prophetess,  the  wife 

and  he  shall  rule  over  tlieo.   Gen.  iii.  16.  of  Lapidoth,  she  judjred  l.srael  at  that 

Tlie  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man.  time.  ...  And  the  cliildren   of  Israel 

1  Cor.  xi.  3.  came  up  to  her  for  judgment.    And 

7'heij  are  commanfiecl  to  ho  Mnder  ohe-  Diboralisaid  unto  Barak,  Up,  for  this 

dience,  as  also  saith  the  law.    1  Cor  ik  the  day  in  which  the  Lord  hath  de- 

xiv.  34.  livered  Sisera  into  thy  hand  :  is  not  the 

Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  Lord  gone  out  before  thee?. ..  So  Rarak 

own  husbands,  as  unto  the  Lord.  .  .  .  went  down  from  mount  Tabor,  and  ton 

Therefore  as  the  church  is  subject  unto  thousand  men  after  him.    Judges  i v. 

Christ',  so  /ef  the  wives  be  to  their  own  4,  5,  14. 

liusband  i  in  everything.  Kph.  v,  22,  24.  And  when  the  queen  of  Sheba  heard 

For  after  this  manner  in  the  old  time  of  tlie  fame  of  .Solomon    she  came  to 

the  holy  wrmen  also,  who  trusted  in  prove  .Solomon  with  hard  questions  at 

Cod,  adorneil  themselves,  being  in  sub-  Jerusalem.    2  Chron.  i.\.  1. 

jectlon  unto  their  own  husbands.    Even  Candaco  queen  of  the    Ethiopians. 

as  Sarah  obeyed  Abraham,  calling  him  Acts.  viii.  27. 
lord.    1  I'et.  "iii.  5,  6. 

The  cases  mentioned  in  Chronicles  and  Acts  are  related  as 
mere  matters  of  history.  Besides,  the  queens  of  Sheba  and 
Ethiopia  were  Gentile  rulers,  and  did  not  arise  under  the  The- 
ocracy. 

The  case  of  Deborah  is  clearly  an  exceptional  one ;  tending 
tlu^rcfore  to  confirm  the  general  rule.  Cassel  remarks :  "  That 
she,  a  woman,  became  the  centre  of  the  people,  proves  the  re- 
laxation of  spiritual  and  manly  energy."     Professor  Bush  has 

'  See  Dcut.  xviii.  10,  11;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  5,  6;  Gal.  v.  20;  Rev.  xxl.  8. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


309 


the  ingenious  suggestion  that  had  her  office,  at  the  time,  been 
discharged  by  a  man,  the  circumstance  might  have  excited  king 
Jabin's  suspicion,  and  led  to  increased  violence  and  ojipression 
on  his  part. 


MuKt  keep  silence. 

T>pt  your  wompn  koop  silpnce  in  the 
clmrches:  for  it  is  not  pciinittcd  unto 
t  licni  to  sjicak ;  but  llieii  are  cominamled 
to  l)c  undi  T  obi'dience,  as  also  saitli  the 
hiw.  And  if  thoy  will  learn  anything, 
let  them  ask  their  husbands  at  home: 
for  it  is  a  shame  fur  nomen  to  speak  in 
the  church.     1  Cor.  xiv.  34,  35. 

Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with 
all  subjection.  But  1  suffer  not  a  woman 
to  teach,  nor  to  usurp  authority  over 
the  man,  but  to  be  in  eilence.  1  Tim. 
ii.  11,  12. 


3Iay  prophesy  and  teach. 

Miriam  the  prophetess,  the  sister  of 
Aaron.     Ex.  xv.  20. 

And  Deborah,  a  prophetess,  the  wife 
of  Lapidoth,  she  judged  Israel  at  that 
time.    Judges  iv.  4. 

Hilkiah  the  priest,  and  Ahikam  and 
Achbor  and  Shaphan  and  Asahiah, 
went  unto  Iluldah  the  prophetess.  .  .  . 
And  she  said  unto  them,  i  lius  saith  the 
LoKi>  God  of  Israel.  2  Kings  xxii. 
14,  15. 

And  there  was  one  Anna  a  prophet- 
ess, .  .  .  which  departed  not  from  the 
temple.  .  .  .  And  she  coming  in  that 
instant,  gave  thanks  likewise  unto  the 
Lord,  and  spake  of  him  to  all  them  that 
looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem. 
Luke  ii.  36,  37,  33. 

And  on  my  servants  and  on  my  hand- 
maidens I  will  pour  out  in  those  days 
of  my  Spirit:  and  they  shall  prophesy. 
Acts  ii.  18. 

AVhora,  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
had  heard,  tlipy  took  him  unto  them, 
and  expounded"  unto  him  the  way  of 
God  more  perfectly.     Acts  xviii.  26. 

And  the  same  nian  had  four  daugh- 
ters, virgins,  which  did  prophesy.  Acts 
xxi.  9. 

Salute  Tryphena  and  Tryphosa,  who 
labor  in  the  Lord.  Salute  the  beloved 
I'ersis,  which  labored  much  in  the 
Lord.    liom.  xvi.  12. 

But  every  woman  that  prayeth  or 
prophesieth  with  lier  hoad  uncovered 
disnonoreth  her  head :  for  that  is  even 
all  one  as  if  she  were  shaven.  1  Cor. 
xi.  5. 

Help  those  women  which  labored 
with  me  in  the  gospel.    I'hil.  iv.  3. 

It  is  difficult  to  scan  carefully  the  texts  at  the  right  which 
mention,  and  by  implication  commend,  female  prophets  and 
teachers  ;  and  at  the  same  time  believe  that  the  texts  at  the  left 
were  meant  to  overbalance  these,  and  to  prohibit,  everywhere 
and  for  all  time,  woman's  speaking  upon  religious  topics,  in 
promiscuous  assemblies,  or  in  public.  Yet  several  of  the  best 
commentators,  Alford,  ElHcott,  Wordsworth,  Neander,  Cony- 
beare,  S.chaff,  Meyer, '  and  1  hither,  apparently  take  this  view 

'  Thi"}  uuthor  in  his  last  edition,  concedes  that  the  prohibition  does  not 


310  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

of  the  case.  Still,  with  fitting  deference,  we  may  ask  whether 
after  all  the  texts  from  Corinthians  and  Timothy  may  not  have 
been  intended  for  a  local  and  specific,  rather  than  a  general, 
api^lication.  Was  there  not  something  in  the  situation  and  sur- 
roundings of  those  to  whom  Paul  was  writing  wliich  warrants 
this  supposition  ?  Many  circumstances  seems  to  favor  this  view. 
We  find  that  sensuality  prevailed  in  the  city  of  Corinth  to  an 
almost  unprecedented  extent.  Mr.  Conybeare  ^  speaks  of  the 
"  peculiar  licentiousness  of  manners"  prevalent  there,  and  adds, 
"  So  notorious  was  this,  that  it  had  actually  ])assed  into  the 
vocabulary  of  the  Greek  tongue,  and  the  very  word  '  to  Corin- 
thianize'  meant '  to  play  the  wanton' ;  nay  the  bad  reputation 
of  the  city  had  become  proverbial,  even  in  foreign  languages, 
and  is  immortalized  by  the  Latin  poets." 

The  same  author,  enumerating  the  evils  which  prevailed  at 
that  time  in  the  Corinthian  church,  says  that  "  women  had  for- 
gotten the  modesty  of  their  sex,  and  came  forward  unveiled 
(contrary  to  the  habit  of  their  country)  to  address  the  public 
assembly."  It  would  seem,  then,  that  any  Corinthian  woman, 
making  herself  conspicuous,  or  attempting  to  speak  in  public, 
would  be  deemed  unchaste.  Does  not  this  fact  furnish  the  key 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  texts  above  mentioned  ?  Docs  Paul 
in  these  texts,  counsel  anything  more  than  a  prudent  regard 
to  the  customs  and  {prejudices  of  the  people,  for  the  sake  of 
avoiding  scandal?  And  might  not  similar  circumstances  in 
Ephesus  where  Timothy  was,  have  prompted  the  like  counsel 
to  him  ? 

Neandcr  -  tliiiiks  that,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  Paul  merely  refers  for 
example  to  what  was  going  on  in  the  Corinthian  cliurch,  reserv- 
ing liis  denunciation  of  it,  to  the  projier  place  in  cliaj)ter  xiv. 

apply  to  the  smaller  reliirious  assctiil)Iics  of  tlie  church,  which,  he  thinks, 
mitrht  fall  under  the  heud  of  "churches  in  the  house,"  Ilaus'jeineindcn. 
Compare  Kom.  xvi.  5;  1  (.'or.  xvi.  19.     Sec  liis  Com.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  1. 

'  Life  and  Ki)istles  of  St.  Paul,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  27,  31  (American  cijition). 

-  I'lantin;;  ami  Trainin>r,  p.  l.'iO.  Sec  also  S(  hafT,  Hist,  of  Apostol. 
Clmrch,  508,  509. 


ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  311 

The  ancient  Montanists  held  that  the  former  passage  was 
meant  to  be  an  exception  to  the  rule,  covering  those  cases  in 
which  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  raised  up 
prophets  from  the  female  sex  ;  also,  that  Paul  meant  to  restrain 
females  from  didactic,  adch*esses,  but  not  from  the  public  ex- 
pression of  their  feelings.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  thinks  that  the 
apostle  merely  prohibits  a  woman's  questioning^  disputing,  etc., 
as  men  were  allowed  to  do,  in  the  synagogues  and  public  assem- 
blies. They  were  to  speak,  if  at  all,  in  a  modest  manner,  by  way 
of  suggestion  rather  than  dictation.  Other  modern  writers  take 
a  similar  view. 

It  is  beyond  reasonable  question  that  the  history  of  mission- 
ary enterprises,  as  well  as  of  revivals,  decidedly  negatives  any 
such  rigid  and  absolute  interpretation  and  application  of  the 
texts  in  the  first  series  as  shall  tend  to  cripple  the  energies  of 
the  church  of  Christ. 


CHAPTER    III. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 


I.    CONCERNING  PERSONS.— Names,  etc. 

We  have  elsewhere  ^  called  attention  to  the  close  resemblance 
of  a  considerable  number  of  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
and  to  the  consequent  liability  of  confounding  them  with  each 
other.  These  simple  facts  furnish  a  reasonable  explanation  of 
many  "  discrepancies  "  with  reference  to  names.  The  following 
examples  will  illustrate  the  point.  In  2  Sam.  xxiii.  27,  we 
find  the  name  "  Mebunnai " ;  in  1  Chron.  xi.  29,  the  name 
"  Sibbecai " ;  both  referring  to  the  same  person.  Now  compare 
these  names  in  the  Hebrew,  ^I^a  and  "'DID,  and  there  is  not 
the  least  doubt  that  the  variation  or  ''  discrepancy  "  arose  through 
a  copyist's  blunder.  So  "  Hemdan,"  Gen.  xxxvi.  20 ;  and 
'•  Amram,"  1  Chr.  i.  41,  stand  in  the  Hebrew  thus;  "jIDn  and 
■jITSn.  Also  "  Zabdi,"  Josh.  vii.  1,  and  "  Zimri,"  1  Chron.  ii. 
0,  are  written  thus:  ^13T  and  ^-|73T.  No  reasonable  man  can 
look  at  cases  like  these  —  which  may  be  multiplied  to  an  indefi- 
nite extent,  —  and  wonder  that  we  find  variations  among  the 
proper  names  occurring  in  the  Bible. 

Comparing  the  first  eight  chapters  of  1  Chronicles  with  cor- 
responding passages  in  Genesis,  numerous  discrepancies,  like 
the  followijig.  appear:  Hadad  for  Hadar,  T  confounded  with 
•^ ;  Aliali  for  Alvab,  Ebal  for  Obal,  Hemam  for  Homam,  Pai 
for  Pau,  Shephi  for  Shepho,  Zephi  for  Zepho,  in  all  which 
cases,  either  by  design  or  otherwise,  ^  is  substituted  for  1.  Else- 
where we  find  "  Caleb"  and  "  Chelubai,"  the  consonants  being 

•  See  pp.  19-25  of  present  work. 
812 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  313 

tlie  same  in  both  words ;  "  Bath-sheba"  aud  "  Bath-sliua,"  a  being 
exchanged  for  1 ;  "Achar  "  and,  "Achan,"  "i  being  interchanged 
with  3  ;  '•  Akan "  and  "•  Jakan,"  "^  prefixed  hi  the  latter  case ; 
"  Bani "  and  "  Binnui,"  *)  inserted  in  the  second  form  of  the 
name.  In  Hke  manner,  "  Huram  "  and  "  Hiram,"  "Araunah  " 
and  "  Oman,"  "  IMichaiah  "  and  "  Maachah,"  "Absalom  "  and 
"Abishalom,"  "  Shealtiel  "  and  '•  Salathiel,"  " Abijah  "  and  "  Abi- 
jam'"  are  mere  variations  of  names.  So  Gesenius  deems 
'•  Uzziah"  a  popular  phonetic  corruption  of  ''Azariah,"  zz  being 
pronounced  for  zr. 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  gives  a  list,  taken  chiefly  from  the  first  eleven 
chapters  of  Chronicles,  comprising  some  one  hundred  and  four- 
teen names  which  differ  from  the  corresponding  names  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture.  These  "  variations  "  he  attributes  for  the 
most  part  to  the  errors  of  transcribers. 

Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  simply  easy  to  commit 
these  errors,  but,  under  the  circumstances  above  described,  it  is 
impossihle,  except  upon  the  hypothesis  of  an  unmtermitted  mir- 
acle, to  avoid  committing  them.  No  human  skill  and  patience 
can  preclude  occasional  slips  of  the  copyist's  pen  and  mistakes  of 
his  eye.  Yet  we  regard  all  errors  like  those  illustrated  in  the 
above  examples  as  of  very  trivial  consequence.  No  doctrine, 
precept,  or  promise  of  the  Bible  is  affected  by  them  in  the 
slightest  degree. 

Another  point  to  he  noticed,  as  exemplifying  the  free  treat- 
ment to  which  proper  names  were  subjected  among  the  Hebrews, 
is  that  of  the  not  uncommon  transposition  of  letters.  Thus  we 
have  "Amiel"  and  "  Eliam,"  "Jehoiachin"  and  '•  Jeconiah  " 
"Ahaziah"  and  "Jehoahaz,"^  "  Harhas"  and  "  Hasrah."  In 
each  of  these  cases  the  difference  arises  from  exchanging  the 

'  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108-112. 

^  Kcnnicott  illustrates  this  case  thus,  ahaz-ihu 

ihit-ohaz,  the  upper  word  represent- 
ins  the  name  "Ahaziah  "  in  the  HcJ)rew,  the  lower  word  representinir  the 
name  "  Jehoahaz,"  as  it  stands  in  the  orifjinal.  —  See  Kennicott'a  Disser- 
tations, ii.  489;  also, /)a.ssi7/i. 
27 


314  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

places  of  the  letters  or  elements  which  compose  the  name. 
Analogous  cases  are  "  keseb  "  and  "  kebes,"  a  lamb  ;  "  almug  " 
and  '•  algimi,"  the  name  of  a  tree;  "  Shamlai"  and  Shalmai,"  a 
man's  name,  "  Timnath-serah  "  and  "  Timuath-heres,"  the  name 
of  the  city  in  which  Joshua  was  buried. 

We  have  in  another  place. '  alluded  to  the  Oriental  custom 
of  applying  several  names  to  the  same  person  or  object.  This 
custom  is  exemplified  by  several  of  the  cases  already  cited,  and 
by  the  following  instances.  "  Esh-baal "  and  "  Ish-bosheth,"  are 
two  names  of  the  same  person  ;  the  former  name,  "  Baal's-man," 
l)eing  given  to  him  either  at  a  time  when  Baal-worship  was 
fashionable  in  Israel,  or  else  when  the  term  "  Baal  "  conveyed 
as  yet  no  obnoxious  meaning ;  the  latter  name,  "  man  of  shame," 
being  applied  when  idolatry  was  at  a  discount.  Nearly  the 
same  may  be  said  as  to  the  names  "  Merib-baal"  and  "  Mephi- 
bosheth."  In  numerous  instances,  apparent  "  discrepancies"  are 
produced  by  the  change  of  a  person's  name  on  account  of  some 
trait  of  character  which  he  has  developed,  or  of  some  change  in 
his  condition  and  prospects. 

The  fact,  also,  that  certain  names  bear  forms  different  in  the 
Old  Testament  from  those  in  the  New  must  be  taken  into  the 
account.  Thus  we  find  Boaz  and  Booz,  Uriah  and  Urias,  Eze- 
kiel  and  Ezekias,  Isaiah  and  Esaias,  Ilosea  and  Osee,  Asher 
and  Aser,  Sharon  and  Saron,  Elisha  and  Eliseus,  Elijah  and 
Elias,  Korah  and  Core,  Beor  and  Bosor,  Noah  and  Noe,  Ilagar 
and  Agar,  Ilezekiah  and  Ezekias,  Jehoshaphat  and  Josaphat, 
Beholioam  and  Roboam,  Joshua  and  Jesus,  with  other  similar 
cases.  ^  The  fact  that  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  forms  of  the 
same  name  diverge  in  this  manner,  serves  to  explain  many 
aj)pai'ont  inconsistencies  in  sacred  history. 

A  word  may  be  added  concerning  the  discrepancies  adduced 
by  certain  critics  in  reference  to  the  derivation  of  names.  For 
example,  they  assert  that,  in  Gen.  xxx.  1  fi,  Tssnchar  receives 
his  nam(!  on  account  of   Leah's  bestowal  of  the  mandrakes;  in 

'  Comp.  pp.  17, 18  bifra.        -  See  BisscH's  Historic  Griffin  o/l!ible,  p.  384. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  315 

verse  18,  on  account  of  her  surrender  of  her  maid  to  Jacob. 

But  it  should  be  noted  that  the  sacred  writer  merely  records 

Leah's  sayings,  yet  makes  himself  in  no  degree  responsible  for 

the  correctness  of  her  philology. 

It  is,  however,  obvious  that  we  have  in  the  case  a  kind  of 

"  play  upon  words."       Murphy  says,  "  She  calls  him  Tssakar, 

with  a  double  allusion.     She  had  hired  her  husband  with  the 

mandrakes,  and  had  received  this  son  as  her  hire  for  giving  her 

maid  to  her  husband." 

Jacob's  name,  —  one  meaninrj.  Another  signification. 

His  hand  took  hold  on  Esau's  heel;  la  not  he  rightly  named  Jacob?  for 

and  his  name  was  called  Jacob.    Gen.  he  hath  supiilauted  me  these  two  times. 

XXV.  26.  Gen.  xxvii.  36. 

According  to  the  first  passage,  the  name  ''  Jacob"  comes  from 
"  iiqab"  to  seize  the  heel.,  and  denotes,  as  Ewald  says,  "  heel- 
grasper."  According  to  Esau's  insinuation  in  the  second  text, 
the  name  means  "  supplanter."  Now  the  truth  is,  that  the  word 
"  aqab"  has  the  closely  connected  secondary  signification,  to  out- 
wit, to  sitpplant ;  and  it  is  to  this  secondary  sense  that  Esau 
alludes  above.  It  is  manifestly  unjust  to  hold  the  sacred  writer 
responsible  for  Esau's  bitter  and  biting  pun.^ 

Joseph's  name,  —  derivation.  A  different  derivation. 

Gen.  XXX.  23.^  Gen.  xxx.  24. ^ 

According  to  the  first  text,  the  name  would  seem  to  be  derived 
from  "  asaph,"  to  take  away ;  according  to  the  second,  from 
'^  yasaph,"  to  add.  The  apparent  incongruity  is  dissipated  by 
Keil's  suggestion  that  Joseph's  birth  was  a  proof  that  God  had 
removed  from  Rachel  the  reproach  of  barrenness ;  while  it  also 
excited  the  wish  that  he  would  add  another  son.  The  "  tak- 
ing away  "  of  an  evil  induced  the  hope  that  a  good  would  be 
"  added." 

"  Moses  "  a  Hebrew  name.  An  Egyptian  name. 

Ex.  ii.  10.  Ex.  ii.  10. 

The  name  "Moses"  [Hebrew,  "Mosheh"]   appears  to  be 

'  Cornpnro  a  similar  snrcastio  \mn  upon  Nahal's  name,  1  Sam.  xxv.  "25. 

■  In  this  and  many  following;  ca^^cs,  where  tlie  laiiirnaiic  of  scripture  pre- 
sents no  peculiariti/,  we  have  for  brevity's  salve  given  simple  references 
instead  of  quotations. 


316  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE.      - 

derived  from  the  Hebrew  verb,  mashah,  to  draw  out.  It  is, 
however,  objected  that  an  Egyptian  princess  would  not  have 
bestowed  upon  her  foster-child  a  Hebrew  name  ;  hence  "  Moses  " 
must,  notwithstanding  the  intimation  of  the  sacred  writer,  be  an 
Egyptian  name. 

Ilavernick,  Kurtz,  and  Dean  Stanley  regard  the  name  as  a 
foreign  word  Hebraized.  The  Alexandrian  Jews,  with  Jose- 
phus  and  Philo,  attributed  to  the  name  an  Egyptian  origin, 
with  a  Greek  inflection. 

But  Canon  Cook,  in  his  valuable  "  Essay  on  Egyptian  AVords 
in  the  Pentateuch," '  points  out  the  existence  of  an  Egyjitian 
word  which  coincides  in  sound  and  in  sense,  with  the  Hebrew 
verb  above  mentioned.  This  Egyptian  term  "  corresponds  in 
form  to  the  Hebrew,  letter  for  letter,"  and  jjrimarily  denotes 
"  drawing  out."  One  of  the  most  famous  Egyptologists,  M. 
Brugsch,  is  cited  to  the  effect  that  the  derivation  of  the  name 
"  Moses"  from  the  Hebrew  "  mashah"  "  would  preserve  the  true 
sense  of  the  Egyptian."  Hence,  Mr.  Cook  concludes  that  the 
present  is  a  case  of  the  "  simple  transcription  of  words,"  —  that 
the  sacred  ^vriter  chose  the  Hebrew  term  because  "  it  came  ex- 
ceedingly near  to,  or  exactly  represented,  the  Egyptian."  Thus 
the  difficulty  vanishes. 

Zebulun  denotes  a  "  dwelling."  A  "  doicry." 

Gen.  XXX.  20.  Gen.  xxx.  20. 

The  name  "  Zebulun"  is  derived  from  zabal,"  to  dwell ;-  with 

a  play  upon,  or  allusion  to,  the  word  "  zabad,"  to  give,  to  endow. 

The  historian,  in  recording  the  i)hilological  conceits  of  others, 

does  not  thereby  vouch  for  them. 

Abigail's  father,  Nahash.  Jesse. 

2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  1  Chron.  ii.  13,  16. 

Tlie  rabbles  say  that  both  names  belonged  to  the  same  per- 
son ;  Ewald  and  Keil,  that  Abigail's  mother  had  a  former  hus- 
})an(l,  Nahash,  previous  to  her  marriage  with  Jesse. 

'  Sec  liiblc  Commentary,  i.  482-484  (American  edition). 
-  This  is  one  of  tlic  numerous  cases  in  which  the  okl  maxim  applies; 
iMmen  habet  omen. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  317 

Abijah's  mother,  daughter  of  Abishalom.  Of  Uriel. 

1  Ivings  XV.  2.  2  Cliron.  xiii.  2. 

Absalom's  daughter,  Tamar,  probably  married  Uriel,  and 
became  the  mother  of  Maachah  or  Michaiah.  This  agrees  with 
Josephus'  statement.'  Hence,  in  the  first  text,  as  often  else- 
where, "  daughter  "  denotes  "  granddaughter  "  :  and,  in  the  tenth 
verse,  the  "  mother  "  of  Asa  was,  strictly  speaking,  his  "  grand- 
mother." 

As  to  the  supposed  discrepancy  between  Abijah's  wicked 
course  of  life,  1  Kings  xv.  3,  and  his  "  pious  "  remarks,  2  Chron. 
xiii.  4—12,  it  may  be  said  simplythat  he  is  not  the  only  wicked 
person  on  record  who  has  used  pious  language  when  it  would 
serve  his  purpose. 

Abraham's  difficulty  with  Pharaoh.  With  Abimelech. 

Gen.  .Kii.  11-20.  Gen.  xx.  2-18. 

"We  have  elsewhere^  seen  that  distinct  events  may  bear  a 
very  close  resemblance.  A  late  rationalist  concedes  that  "  in 
those  rude  times,  such  a  circumstance  might  have  been  repeated," 
and  that  the  "  dissimilarities "  of  the  two  cases  render  their 
identity  doubtful.  In  king  Abimelech,  says  Keil,  we  meet  with 
a  totally  different  character  from  that  of  Pharaoh.  "We  see  in 
the  former  a  heathen  imbued  with  a  moral  consciousness  of  right, 
and  open  to  receive  divine  revelation,  of  which  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  in  the  khig  of  Egypt.  The  two  cases  were  evi- 
dently quite  distinct. 

In  the  first  instance,  Sarah  was  some  sixty-five  years  of  age ; ' 
hence  it  has  been  thought  strange  that  she  was  spoken  of  as 
"  very  fair."  But,  since  she  lived  on(i  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
years,  she  was  now  in  only  middle  life.  She  had  escaped  the  hard- 
ships of  maternity,  and  being  "  a  noble  nomadic  princess,"  had 
led  a  free  and  healthful  life.  In  contrast  to  the  swarthy,  ugly, 
early-faded  Egyptian  women,  she  possessed  no  doubt  great 
personal   attractions.     In  the  second   instance,  when  she  was 

'  Antiq.  viii.  10,  1.  ^  g^g  pp  OQ,  27  of  present  work. 

°  Compare  Gen.  xii.  4;  xvii.  17. 
27 


318  DISCBEPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

some  ninety  years  of   age,  nothing  is  said  as  to  ht^.r  heauty. 

Abimelech  was  influenced,  not  by  Sarah's  personal  charms,  but 

simjily  by  a  desire  to  "ally  liimself  witli  Abraham,  the  rich 

nomad  prince."  ^ 

The  quite  similar  case  of  Isaac,  Gen.  xxvi.  6-11,  has  been 

supposed  to  be  a  varying  account  of  the  one  original  transaction. 

But  the  name  "  Abimelech,"  common  to  the  two  cases,  proves 

nothing ;  for,  as  Keil  remarks,  it  was  "  the  standing  official  name 

of  the  kings  of  Gerar."  ^ 

Abraham's  inheritance  secured.  Not  possessed  bij  him. 

Gen.  xiii.  15;  xv.  18.  Acts  vii.  5. 

The  explanatory  phrase,  "  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this 

land,"  shows  that  the  gift  was  not  to  Abraham  personally,  but 

to  him  as  the  founder  and  representative  of  the  nation.     The 

land  was  given  to  him,  as  we  may  say,  "  in  trust." 

Abraham's  need  of  divine  intervention.        No  occasio7i  for  a  miracle. 

Then   Abraham  fell  upon  his    face,        Then   apain  Abraham  took  a  wife, 

and   huiehed,   and  said  in   liis    licart,  and  her  name  irns  Keturah.    And  she 

Sliall  «  f/(//f/ be  born  unto  him  tliat  isa  bare   him   Zimran,  and  Jokshan,  and 

hundred  years  ohl?     den.  xvii.  IT.  Sledan,  and  Midian,  and  l^hbuk,  aud 

Therefore  sprang  fliere  even   of  one,  bliuali.     Gen.  xxv.  1,  2. 
and  liim  as  frond  as  dead,  so  many  as 
tlie  stars  of  the  sky  in  multitude.  Jileb. 
xi.  12. 

It  is  perfectly  in  keeping  witli  Oriental  methods  of  writing 
history  to  suppose  that  the  words  "  then  again,"  in  the  second 
passage,  resume  the  narrative  after  a  digres.sion,  and  carry  us 
back  into  the  life-time  of  Sarah.  It  would  then  follow  that 
Keturah's  children  were  born  to  Abraham  before  the  disability 
of  old  age  overtook  him.  Or,  we  may  say  that  tlie  miraculous 
quickening  of  his  virile  jiowers,  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  be- 
come the  father  of  Isaac,  was  continued  for  some  years  after. 

Abraham  weak,  and  in  fear.  Possessed  a  larr/c  force. 

Gen.  XX.  11.  Gen.  xiv.  14. 

Colenso  asserts  that  Abraham,  with  his  "  immense  band  of 
trained  servants,  having  routed  the  combined  forces  of  Eastern 
kings,  could  not  have  feared  the  petty  prince  of  Gerar."     But 

»  So  Delitzsch,  "  See  Ps.  xxxiv,  title. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  319 

(1)  tliree-liuiidred  uiul  eighteen  servants  are  hardly  an  '•im- 
mense ban(h"  Abimelech's  army  may  have  been  twenty  times 
larger.  (2)  Abraham  had  not  alone  routed  the  combined  forces 
of  the  kings.  His  "  confederates,"  Aner,  Eshcol,  and  INIamre,* 
may  have  contributed  much  the  larger  portion  of  the  victorious 
army.  So  that,  humanly  speaking,  he  may  have  had  great 
reason  to  fear  Abimelech. 

Ahaz  favored  divine  worship.  Closed  the  temple. 

2  Kinf^s  xvi.  15.  2  Chron.  xxviil.  24. 

The  text  from  Chronicles  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  his  reign, 

when  he  had  reached  the  lowest  depths  of  ungodliness.     At  an 

earlier  period,  he  had  indeed  encouraged  a  corrupt    form  of 

worship.- 

Ahaz  invincible.  Compelled  to  seek  aid. 

2  Kings  xvi.  5.  2  Kings  xvi.  7;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5, 16,  20. 

The  first  passage  refers  to  an  early  unsuccessful  expedition  of 
the  allied  kings  against  Ahaz.  Later  they  overcame  him.  In 
this  strait,  the  king  of  Assyria  helped  Ahaz,  yet  helped  him 
not.^  That  is,  this  warlike  monarch,  at  the  request  of  Ahaz, 
attacked  and  conquered  Rezin,  one  of  the  allies,  thus  affording 
temporary  relief ;  but  by  his  subsequent  exactions  and  restric- 
tions he  really  distressed  and  weakened  Ahaz.  For  the  latter 
was  compelled  to  become  tributary  to  him,  to  send  him  all  the 
treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace,  and  finally  to  appear  before 
him  in  Damascus  as  a  vassal. 

Ahaziah's  brethren  slai7i.  Their  sons  slain. 

2  Kings  X.  13, 14.  2  Chron.  xxii.  8. 

Biihr,  Movers,  and  Ewald  say  that  the  word  rendered  "  breth- 
ren "  may  sometimes  imply  near  relatives  simply.  "We  thus  see 
how  Ahaziah,  the  "  youngest  son,"  and  born  when  liis  father 
was  but    eighteen    years  of    age,*  could    have   had    forty-two 

*  See  Gen.  xiv.  l.S,  24. 

*  Compare  2  Kings  xvi.  10-16. 

'  2  Kings  xvi.  9;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  20,  21. 

*  Compare  2  Kings  viii.  17,  20;  x.  14;  2  Chron.  xxii.  1. 


320  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

"  brethren."     His   nephews  and  cousins  were  all  reckoned  in 

the  number.     In  the  second  text,  the  term  may  be  used  in  the 

strict  sense,  of  his  own  brothers. 

Ahaziah's  grandfather,  Omri.  Ahab. 

2  Kings  viii.  26.  2  Kings  viii.  18. 

"  Daughter,"  in  the  first  text,  means  simply  "  female  descend- 
ant." In  the  twenty-seventh  verse,  Ahaziah  is  styled  "■  the  son- 
in-law  of  the  house  of  Ahab." 

Ahimelech,  high-priest.  Ahiah.  Abiathar. 

1  Sam.  XXI.  1.  1  Sam.  xiv.  3.  Mark  ii.  26. 

Probably,  Aliimelech,  Abimelech,'  and  Ahiah  were  names  of 
the  same  person.  As  to  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  which  makes  Ahime- 
lech the  son  of  Abiathar,  instead  of  the  reverse,  as  elsewhere, 
Bertheau,  Oehler,  and  Keil  think  the  line  ran  thus  ;  Aliimelech, 
Abiathar,  Ahimelech,  so  that  Abiathar  was  the  son  of  Ahime- 
lech, while  Ahimelech  (the  second)  was  the  son  of  Abiathar. 
The  expression  in  Mark,  "  in  the  days  of  Abiathar  the  priest," 
may  denote  merely  that  Abiathar  was  acting  as  his  father's 
sagan  or  substitute.^  Or,  since  Abiathar  was,  from  his  long 
association  with  king  David,  much  more  famous  than  his  father, 
his  name,  although  he  was  not  as  yet  high-priest,  may  be  used 
here  by  a  kind  of  historical  anticipation. 

Amasa's  father,  Ithra  an  Israelite.  Jether  an  Ishmaelite. 

2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  1  Chron.  ii.  17. 

The  rabbles  say  that  Jether  or  Jithra  was  an  Ishmaelite  by 
birth,  who  became  an  Israelite.  So  Ewald,  who  adds  that  "Je- 
ther "  is  a  shorter  form  for  "  Ithra."  An  examination  of  the 
two  passages  in  the  oi-iginal  makes  it  evident  that  the  variation 
is  due  to  a  copyist's  mistake. 

Ammonites'  allies.  Another  statement. 

Tho  Syriniis  of  Hotli-roliob,  and  tlie  Chariots  and  liorsi-mcn  out.  of  Meso- 

.Syrians  of /oba.  twoiity  tlioiisniid  foot-  potaniia,  and  out  ol'.Syria-maacIiali,  and 

null,  and  of  king  Muacali  a  thonsaiid  oiitofZobah.     f"!o  they  liircd  thirty  and 

men,  and   of  l.-ih-tob  twelve  thousand  two  tlioufand  chariots,  and  tlio  kinr;  of 

men.    'i  8am.  x.  U.  Maachah  and  his  people.  1  Chron.  xi.v. 

6,  7. 

'  1  Cliron.  xviii.  16,     Kwakl,  "simply  a  transcriber's  error." 

*  See  Lightfoot,  Ilorac  Ilcbraicac,  on  Luke  iii.  2  (Carpzov'a  edition). 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  821 

Beth-rchoh  was  one  of  the  little  kingdoms  of  Mesopotamia, 
as  also  were  INIaacah,  Zobah,  and  Tob  petty  monarchies  of  Syria. 
("  Ish-tob,"  translated  is  "  men  of  Tob.") 

Thus,  the  names  and  numbers  agree  as  follows : 

Sj'rians  of  Beth-rehob  and  Zoba,    20,000    Syrians  of  Zobah,  etc.  32,000 
Syrians  of  Ish-tob,  12,000    Syrians  of  Maachah, 

Syrians  of  Maacah,  1,000    (number  not  given),      [1,000] 

33,000  33,000 

But  one  passage  names  "  footmen,"  the  other  "  chariots." 
Keil  speaks  of  copyist's  errors,  and  Rawlinson  thinks  that  in 
the  seventh  verse,  at  the  right,  the  words  "  and  horsemen  "  have 
dropped  out  after  "  chariots."  Dr.  Davidson  ^  cites  approvingly 
Brown  of  Haddington's  explanation,  that  the  Hebrew  term  reiw 
dered  "  chariots,"  denotes  not  only  a  chariot,  but  a  rider,  and 
should  probably  be  translated,  in  a  collective  sense,  cavalry.  It 
is  suggested  that  these  troops  were  a  kind  of  auxiliaries,  com- 
monly employed  in  fighting  on  horse-back  or  in  chariots,  but 
sometimes  as  foot-soldiers. 

Anah,  a  Ilittite.  Eorite.  Hivite. 

Gen.  xxvi.  34.^  Gen.  xxxvi.  20.  Gen.  xxxvi.  2. 

Lange  thinks  that  the  term  "  Hittite  "  defines  the  race,  "  Hi- 
vite "  the  tribe,  and  "  Horite  "  ("  cave-dweller  ")  the  habitation 
of  Anah.  There  were  at  least  two  Anahs,  the  brother  and 
the  son,  of  Zibeon.^ 

Or,  since  the  three  names  differ  in  the  Hebrew  by  one  let- 
ter only,  we  may  with  Michaclis  and  Bertheau  ascribe  the  dis- 
agreement to  an  error  of  transcription. 

Anak's  sons  loere  slain.  They  were  expelled. 

AndJuflah  wont  ajrainst  the  Canaan-        And  Caleb  drove  thence  the  three 
ites  that  dwc-lt  in   Hebron:  (now  the    sons  of  Anak,  !<heshai,   and  Ahiman, 
name  of  Uobron  before  was    Kirjath-    and  Talmai.     Josh.  xv.  14. 
avba :)  and  they  slew  Slieshai,  and  Ahi-       And  Wvy  jrave  Hebron  nnto  Caleb, 
man,  and  Talmai.    Judg.  i.  10.  as  Moses  said:  and  he  expelled  thenco 

the  three  sons  of  Anak.    Judg.  i.  20. 

De  Wette"  strangely  asserts  that  the  children  of  Judali  "  slow 

'  Sacred  Ilermencutics,  p.  552.  -  IJceri  =  Anah. 

*  Compare  Gen.  xxxvi.  20  and  24.  *  Introd.  to  Old  Te^t.,  ii.  174. 


322  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  same  three  Anakim  —  Sbeshai,  Aliiman,  and  Talmai  —  whom 
Caleb  had  killed  before."     To  this  we  reply : 

1.  If  the  three  passages  refer  to  the  same  event,  that  which 
in  the  first  is  attributed  to  the  men  of  Judah,  is,  by  a  common 
figure,  ascril)ed  in  the  other  two  to  Caleb,  as  leader  of  the  ex- 
pedition, ^loreover,  the  verb  '•  yiirash  "  employed,  in  the  texts 
at  the  right,  means,  not  only  to  drive  out,  to  expel,  but  also  ac- 
cording to  Fuerst  and  Geseniiis,  to  destroy}  Thus  tlie  discrep- 
ancy vanishes.  Caleb  expelled  the  three  Anakim  from  Hebron, 
and  from  among  the  living. 

2.  Or,  with  Konig  and  others,  we  may  refer  the  contrasted 
texts  to  two  different  events.  On  this  hypothesis,  the  first 
chapter  of  Judges  does  not  follow  the  strict  chronological  order 
(verses  11-15,  20,  being  cited  almost  verbatim  from  Joshua 
XV.  13-19,  and  referring,  of  course,  to  the  same  point  of  time). 
So  that  the  sequence  of  events  is  as  follows  :  Joshua  conquers 
Hebron,  and  slaughters  or  jDUts  to  flight  the  Anakim  who  dwell 
there.^  T>ut  while  he  is  occupied  elsewhere,  the  remnant  of 
them  return  from  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  regain  possession 
of  Hebron,  and  inhabit  it.  Hence,  several  years  later,  when  this 
city  was  assigned  to  Caleb,  he  had  first  to  dislodge  the  Anakim, 
the  three  leaders  of  whom  were  slain  in  their  flight,  or  in  some 
subsequent  conflict,  by  Caleb's  adherents. 

Apostles  named.  Seronrllist.  Tlilrdlist.  Fourth  list. 

Matt.  X.  2-4.        Mark  iii.  16-19.        Luke  vi.  13-16.        Acts  i.  13. 

The  names,  though  arranged  differently,  agree  except  in  two 
instances.  It  is  maintained  by  the  best  critics,  Alford,'  Meyer, 
Robinson,  Ebrard,  Gardiner,  and  others,  that  Lebbeus,  Thad- 
dcus,  and  Judas  the  brother  of  James,  were  one  and  the  same 
person.  Simon  Zelotes  and  Simon  the  Canaanitc  were  identi- 
cal; "  Zelotes"  being  tlie  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  term  ren- 
dered "  Canaanitc."      As    the  name  "  Bartholomew  "  (son  of 


'  Num.  xiv.  12  is  cited  a.s  an  example.  ^  Josh.  xi.  21,  22. 

"  Sec  his  Commentary  on  Matt.  x.  2-4. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  323 

Talmai)  is  merely  a  patronymic,  its  bearer  is  generally  believed 

to  have  been  the  same  with  "  Nathanael,"  John  i.  45. 

Asa's  mother,  Maachah.  His  grandmother. 

2  Chron.  XV.  16.  1  Kings  xv.  2,  S,  10. 

In  ancient  Persia,  the  king  sometimes  for  political  reasons 

adopted  a  mother.     When  Cyrus  conquered  Astyages,  he,  in 

order  to    conciliate  a  certain  portion  of    the  people,    adopted 

Amytis,  or  Mandane  as  his  mother.     Mr.  Newman  ^  ingeniously 

suggests  that  Asa  adopted,  in  like  mamier.  the  mother  of  the 

deceased  king ;  hence  she  became  queen-mother  of  the  realm, 

though  afterwards  deposed  on  account  of  her  idolatry.^ 

Asa  removed  the  high-places.  Left  them  undisturbed. 

2  Chron.  xiv.  3,  5.  1  Kings  xv.  14. 

Bahr,  Thenius,  Bertheau,  and  others  say  that  the  high  places 
dedicated  to  idols  were  destroyed ;  while  those  dedicated  to  Je- 
hovah were  allowed  to  remain,  since  his  true  servants,  having 
been  long  accustomed  to  them,^  might  have  been  grieved  by 
their  removal.  Keil  tWnks  that  the  second  text  merely  implies 
that  the  king  did  not  succeed  in  carrying  out  thoroughly  his 
reforms.  Rawlinson  suggests  that  the  above  texts  refer  to 
different  times ;  Asa,  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign,  putting 
down  idolatry  with  a  strong  hand,  but  in  his  later  years,  when 
his  character  had  deteriorated,*  allowing  idol-worship  to  creep 
in  again. 

Bedan,  a  judge  of  Israel.  His  name  not  mentioned. 

1  Sam.  xii.  11.  Judges  vii.-xii. 

Cassel  and  Davidson,  with  the  Chaldee  and  the  rabbles,  refer 
"  Bedan  "  to  Samson, —  Bedan  being  equivalent  to  Ben- Dan, 
a  Danite.     Ewald  deems  the  name  a  corruption  of  Abdon. 

But  Keil  and  Kennicott,  with  the  Septuagint,  Syriac,  and 
Arabic,  tiike  it  as  a  copyist's  blunder,  for  Barak,  -jin  for  pnn. 

Caleb's  father,  Jcphunneh.  Ilur.  Ilezron. 

.Josh.  xiv.  6.  1  Chron.  ii.  50.        1  Chron.  ii.  18. 

*  Hist,  of  llel).  Monarchy,  p.  IJO,  151.  -  1  Kings  xv.  l.S. 

« 1  Kings  iii.  2,  8.  <  Sec  2  Chron.  xvi.  7-12. 


324  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

There  were,  as  Ewald,  Keil,  and  others  think,  two  or  three 
men  who  bore  the  name  of  Caleb.  Besides,  the  term  "  son," 
in  some  of  the  above  texts,  may  mean  simply  "  descendant." 

As  to  the  disagreement  of  1  Chron.  ii.  19  and  50,  resjiecting 
Caleb's  relation  to  Ephrath  and  to  Hur,  Rawlinson  and  Ber- 
theau  place  a  period  after  ''  Caleb  "  in  the  fiftieth  verse,  and 
read  thus :  "  These  (referring  to  the  preceding)  were  the  sons 
of  Caleb.  The  sons  of  Hur,  the  first-born  of  Ephratah,  were 
Shobal,"  etc.     This  relieves  the  entire  difficulty. 

Canaanites  were  destroyed.  Were  merely  subsidized. 

Josh.  X.  40;  xi.  14, 15.  Jud^.  i.  28,  30,  33,  35. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  texts  at  the  left  are  couched  in 
general  terms,  and  refer  particularly  to  the  southern  part  of 
Palestine. 

Masius '  maintains  that  Joshua  swept  over  this  region  in  too 
rapid  a  manner  to  depopulate  it  entirely.  All  that  he  needed 
was  to  strike  such  terror  into  the  hearts  of  his  enemies  that  they 
would  no  longer  make  a  stand  against  him.  All  whom  he 
pursued,  he  destroyed ;  but  he  did  not  stop  to  search  into  every 
possible  hiding  jilace.  Tliis  was  left  to  be  done  by  each  tribe, 
in  its  owTi  inheritance. 

Canaanites  spared,  to  prove  Israel.  To  teach  Israel  loar. 

Judg.  ii.  22;  iii.  4.  Judg.  iii.  2. 

They  were  spared  for  a  two-fold  reason ;  one  part  being 
brought  out  in  the  two  former  texts,  the  other  in  the  latter  text. 
Israel  was  put  to  the  proof  by  the  opportunity  of  learning  to 
wage  war  rightly  against  the  enemies  of  God  and  his  kingdom. 

ChriM  bore  his  own  cro's.  It  loas  borne  by  Simon. 

John  xix.  17.  Luke  xxiii.  26. 

Jesus  may  have  borne  the  cross    himself,  until    his  failing 

strength  caused  a  transference  of  the  burden  to  Simon,  whom 

l\Ieyer  takes  to  have  been  a  slave,  selected  on  account  of  tlie 

indignity  of  the  rcfiuircd  service.      From  Luke,  Ebrard  infers 

'  See  in  Keil  on  .losh.  x.  40. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  325 

that  Simon  did  not  bear  the  cross  alone,  but  merely  went  behind 

Jesus,  and  aided  him  in  carrying  it. 

Christ's  last  drink  of  one  kind.  Of  a  different  kind. 

They  pave    him    vinppar    to    drink.  And  they  Rave  him  to  drink,  winn 

mingled  with  gall:  and  when  he  liad  mingled  with  myrrh:  but  he  received 

tasted   iliereof,   lie   would    not    drink,  it  not.    Mark  xv.  23. 
Matt,  xxvii.  34. 

From  a  comparison  of  Matt,  xxvii.  34  and  48,  it  is  clear 
that  drink  was  twice  offered  to  Jesus  while  on  the  cross.  The 
first  time,  the  wine  drugged  with  bitter  narcotics,  the  effect  of 
which  would  be  to  stupefy  liim,  he  did  not  receive.  Afterward, 
some  drink  free  from  drugs  was  given  him,  which  he  accepted.^ 

The  word  rendered  "  vinegar  "  means,  according  to  Grotius, 
Robinson,  Davidson,^  and  others,  simply  poor  or  cheap  wine, 
such  as  was  used  by  the  poorer  class.  The  word  translated 
"  gall  "  denotes,  secondarily,  anything  bitter,  —  wormwood, 
poppy,  myrrh,  and  the  like.' 

Christ's  (jenealogy,  —  one  form.  A  diverse  form. 

And  Jacob  bejrat  Joseph  the  husband  And  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about 
ofiJlary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was  sup- 
is  called  Christ.    Matt.  i.  16.  posed)  the  son  of  Joseph,  which  was 

the  son  of  Heli.    Luke  iii.  23. 

There  are  two  principal  theories  respecting  these  genealogies. 

1.  That  held  by  Alford,  EUicott,  Hervey,  Meyer,  Mill, 
Patritius,  "Wordsworth,  and  others  —  that  both  genealogies  are 
Joseph's  ;  Matthew  exhibiting  him  as  the  legal  heir  to  the  throne 
of  David,  that  is,  naming  the  successive  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
from  David  to  Jesus  the  reputed  son  of  Joseph ;  while  Luke  gives 
Joseph's  private  genealogy  or  actual  descent.  This  theory  is  very 
ingeniously  and  elaborately  sot  forth  in  Lord  Arthur  llervey's 
work*  upon  the  subject,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

2.  That  held  by  Auberlen,  Ebrard,  Greswell,  Kurtz,  Lange, 

'  See  John  xix.  29,  30. 

-  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  561. 

^  In  the  Septuagint  it  stands  for  wormwood,  Prov.  v.  4;  for  poppy,  Dent, 
xxix.  18. 

'  "  The  tlcnealo-iics  of  our  Lord,"  London,  1853.  See  on  the  other  side, 
Mr.  Holmes  in  Kitto,  ii.  9-2-102  (last  edition).  Also,  Ebrard,  "  The  Gospel 
History,"  pp.  149-163. 

28 


326  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Lightfoot,  Michaelis,  Neander,  Robinson,  Surenhusius,  Wieseler, 
and  others  —  that  Matthew  gives  Joseph's,  and  Luke,  Mary's, 
genealogy.  Although  the  alleged  discrepancies  may  be  re- 
moved upon  either  hypothesis,  yet  we  must  give  the  preference 
to  the  second,  for  the  following  reasons. 

(1)  The  latter  theory  seems  supported  by  several  early 
Christian  writers,  —  Origen,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Athanasius, 
and  Justin  Martyr.' 

(2)  It  is  indirectly  confirmed  by  Jewish  tradition.  Light- 
'foot  ^  cites  from  the  Talmudic  writers  concerning  the  pains  of 

hell,  the  statement  that  Mary  the  dauglder  of  Heli  was  seen  in 
the  infernal  regions,  suffering  horrid  tortures.^  This  statement 
illustrates,  not  only  the  bitter  animosity  of  the  Jews  toward 
the  Christian  religion,  but  also  the  fact  that,  according  to 
received  Jewish  tradition,  Mary  was  the  daughter  of  Heli ; 
hence,  that  it  is  her  genealogy  which  we  find  in  Luke. 

(3)  This  theory  shows  us  in  what  way  Christ  was  the  ''  Son 
of  David."  If  Mary  was  the  daughter  of  Heli,  then  Jesus  was 
strictly  a  descendant  of  David,  not  only  legalbj,  through  his 
reputed  father,  but  actually,  by  direct  personal  descent,  through 
his  mother.  The  latter  consideration  is  one  of  the  very  first 
interest  and  importance. 

(4)  This  theory  affords  a  very  simple  explanation  of  the 
whole  matter.  Mary,  since  she  had  no  brothers,  was  an 
heiress  ;  therefore  her  husband,  according  to  Jewish  law,  was 
reckoned  among  her  father's  family,  as  his  son.  So  that  Joseph 
was  the  actual  son  of  Jacob,  and  the  legal  son  of  Heli.  In  a 
word,  Matthew  sets  forth  Jesus'  right  to  the  theocratic  crown  ; 
Luke,  his  natural  pedigree.  The  latter  employs  Joseph's 
name,  instead  of  Mary's,  in  accordance  with  the  Israelite  law 
tliat  "genealogies  must  be  reckoned  by  fathers,  not  mothers." 
For  the  remaining  difficulties  of  the  case,  see  discussion  else- 
where. 

'  See  Kitto,  ii.  92-94,  547.  *  llorac  Hcbraicac  on  Luke  iii.  28, 

"  "  Suspcnsam  per  glandulaa  mammarum,"  etc. 


HISTOEICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  327 

Christ'i^  last  tour,  —  one  account.  A  different  statement. 

Matt.  xix.  1;  xx.  17,  29;  xxi.  1.  John  x.  40;  xi.  17,54;  xH.  1. 

These  two  series  of  texts  seem  to  represent  Jesus'  journeyings 
somewhat  diiferently.  But,  as  Ebrard/  Robinson,'-  Gardiner,^ 
and  others  have  shown,  they  refer  to  different  points  of  time. 
When  Jesus  took  his  final  departure  from  Galilee,  he  went  up 
to  Jerusalem,  where  he  attended  the  feasts  of  tabernacles  and 
of  dedication  ;  then  withdrew  to  Perea  beyond  Jordan.  Thence 
he  went  to  Bethany,  where  he  raised  Lazarus,  and  to  Jeru- 
salem, whence  he  retired  to  "  Ephraim,"  where  he  tarried  a 
little,*  and  taught.  Thence  he  returned  toward  Jerusalem,  by 
the  way  of  Jericho,  where  he  healed  the  blind  men  and  visited 
Zaccheus,  and  arrived  at  Bethany  six  days  previous  to  his  final 
passover.  Some  of  the  above  texts  refer  to  one  portion, 
others,  to  another  portion,  of  these  journeys. 

Christ's  miracles  were  concealed.  Were  promulgated. 

Matt.  ix.  30;  Mark  v.  43.  Mark  v.  19;  Luke  vii.  22. 

These  two  series  of  texts  refer  to  quite  different  circum- 
stances. Wherever  a  report  of  the  signs  and  wonders  wrought 
by  Christ  was  likely  to  be  conveyed  without  a  right  conception 
of  his  person  and  doctrine,  there  he  suffered  not  the  report  to 
be  carried.^  It  was  fitting  that  the  fears  of  the  Gadarenes 
should  be  allayed  by  knowledge  of  the  "  great  things  "  which 
the  Lord  had  done  for  the  poor  demoniac.  In  Galilee  and 
Judea  there  was,  on  the  other  hand,  very  great  danger,  says 
Ebrard,  of  confirming  the  people  in  their  carnal  expectations 
of  the  Messiah,  and  even  of  producing  disorder. 

Christ's  resurrection,  —  certain  narratives.  Different  account  of  it. 

Matt,  xxviii.  1-10;  Mark  xvi.  1-14.        Luke  xxiv.1-12 ;  John  xx.  1-18. 

Owing  to  the  condensed  and  somewhat  fragmentary  natm-e 
of  these  several  narratives,  and  their  neglect  of  sti-ict  chrono- 
logical sequence,  they  present  some  difficulties  and    apparent 

'  Gospel  History,  sections  79-85.        -  English  Harmony,  sections  81-111. 
3  Greek  Harmony,  sections  76-112.    *  John  xi.  54. 
'  See  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  13.-.3. 


328  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

discrepancies.  There  is,  however,  not  the  least  doubt  that,  if 
we  knew  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  those  which  we  now 
know  would  be  seen  to  fit  perfectly  into  their  appropriate  places 
in  the  narrative.^  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  no  one 
of  the  sacred  writers  gives,  or  intended  to  give,  all  the  circum- 
stances. Each  selects  those  particulars  which  seemed  to  him 
most  important,  passing  by  intermediate  incidents. 

The  following  summary  of  the  case  is  given  by  Robinson,^ 
"At  early  dawn  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  women  who 
had  attended  on  Jesus,  viz.  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother 
of  James,  Joanna,  Salome,  and  others  ^  went  out  with  spices  to 
the  sepulchre,  in  order  further  to  embalm  the  Lord's  body.  They 
inquire  among  themselves,  who  should  remove  for  them  the 
stone  which  closed  the  sepulchre.  On  their  arrival  they  find 
the  stone  already  taken  away ;  for  there  had  been  an  earthquake, 
and  an  angel  had  descended  and  rolled  away  the  stone,  and  sat 
upon  it,  so  that  the  keepers  became  as  dead  men  for  terror. 
The  Lord  had  risen.  The  women  knowing  nothing  of  all  this, 
are  amazed ;  they  enter  the  tomb,  and  find  not  the  body  of  the 

'  Ebrard  (Gospel  History,  pp.  59-60)  jrives,  from  personal  observation, 
a  case  showinj?  how  the  knowledjie  of  a  hitherto  unknown  circumstance 
will  often  reduce  several  discordant  incidents  to  harmonious  consecution. 
A  messenj^cr  N.  by  name,  was  sent  from  Ziirich  to  ITdfflkon  on  the  occa- 
sion of  an  outbreak  in  the  latter  place.  Accordinsj;ly  Ebrard  was  informed 
by  one  trustworthy  person  that  X.  was  sent,  late  in  the  evening;,  with  a 
letter  to  P.;  another  told  him  that  N.  was  sent  in  the  evening;  to  P.,  but, 
after  ^o\n<i  a  short  distance,  returned  with  the  report  that  the  alarm-bell 
had  already  been  runy;  in  P. ;  a  third  related  that  two  messenj^crs  had  been 
sent  on  horseback  to  P. ;  and  a  fourth  that  N.  had  sent  two  men  on  horse- 
back to  P.  These  seeminij;  discrepancies  vanished,  when  Eiirard  afterward 
learned  from  X.  himself  that  he  had  indeed  been  sent,  but  met  on  the  way 
two  mcssen^rers  from  P.,  who  reported  the  outbreak  of  the  riot;  that  ho 
turned  back  with  them  to  Zurich,  where  he  immediately  procured  horses 
for  them,  and  sent  them  back  to  quiet  the  people  in  P.  We  thus  see,  that 
once  in  possession  of  the  thread  of  the  ritirraiujc,  it  is  an  easy  matter  to 
arranije  upon  it  scemin^My  refractory  and  incompatible  circumstances. 

-  Sec  liiblioiheca  Sacra  for  Pel).  184.j,  i)p.  187,  188. 

'There  were  two  distinct  fiariies  of  women.  This  fact  relieves  several 
difficulties.    See  under  "  Numbers"  and  "  Time." 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  329 

Lord,  and  are  gi'eatly  perplexed.  At  this  time,  Mary  Magdalene 
impressed  with  the  idea  .that  the  body  had  been  stolen  away, 
leaves  the  sepulchre  and  the  other  women,  and  runs  to  the  city 
to  tell  Peter  and  John.^  The  rest  remain  in  the  tomb,  and  im- 
mediately two  angels  appear,  who  announce  unto  them  that  Je- 
sus was  risen  from  the  dead,  and  give  them  a  charge  in  his  name 
for  the  apostles.  They  go  out  quickly  from  the  sepulchre,  and 
proceed  in  haste  to  the  city  to  make  this  known  to  the  disciples. 
On  the  way,  Jesus  meets  them,  permits  them  to  embrace  his 
feet,  and  renews  the  same  charge  to  the  apostles.  The  women 
relate  these  things  to  the  disciples ;  but  their  words  seem  to 
them  as  idle  tales ;  and  they  believed  them  not. 

Meantime,  Peter  and  John  had  run  to  the  sepulchre ;  and  enter- 
ing in  had  found  it  empty ;  but  the  orderly  arrangement  of  the 
grave-clothes  and  of  the  napkin  convinced  John  that  the  body 
had  not  been  removed  by  violence  or  by  friends  ;  and  the  germ  of 
a  belief  arises  in  his  mind  that  the  Lord  had  risen.  The  two 
returned  to  the  city.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  again  followed 
them  to  the  sepulchre,  remained  standing  and  weeping  before  it ; 
and  looking  in  she  saw  two  angels  sitting.  Turning  around,  she 
sees  Jesus,  who  gives  to  her  also  a  solemn  charge  for  his  disciples." 

It  will  be  seen  that  tliis  summary  comprises  nearly  every  in- 
cident mentioned  by  the  four  evangelists.  Ebrard^  concurs 
substantially  in  the  view  here  given. 

As  to  the  fact  that  according  to  Mark  the  women  said  noth- 
ing to  any  man,  while  accordiiig  to  Matthew  they  ran  to  carry 
the  tidings  to  the  disciples,  Ebrard  thinks  that  the  women  act- 
ually hastened  back  to  the  city  with  the  intention  of  telling  the 
message,  but,  on  their  arrival,  found  the  apostles  in  such  a  state 
of  depression  and  gloom  that  from  fear  of  ridicule  they  did  not 
at  first  venture  to  do  their  errand.     ''  Disobedient,  indeed,  they 

*  Peter  and  John  appear  to  have  lodged  that  night  in  a  place  separate 
from  the  other  apostles.  Griesbach  thinks  that  the  apostles  at  this  time 
were  scattered  throu^ihout  the  city  among  those  who  were  friendly  to  their 
cause.  —  See  Bib.  Sacra,  p.  17'2,  note. 

»  Gospel  History,  pp.  447,  448. 
28* 


330  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

had  no  wish  to  be ;  but  they  jDut  oflf  from  oue  moment  to  an- 
other what  they  found  it  so  hard  to  tell,  and  what  harmonized 
so  little  with  the  lamentations  that  were  heard  all  around." 

Or,  it  may  be  that  Mark  refers  as  above  to  one  party  of  the 
women,  while  Matthew  alludes  to  the  other  party. 

With  reference  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  suffered  not  Mary  Mag- 
dalene to  touch  him,  but  permitted  the  other  women  to  embrace 
his  feet,^  it  is  to  be  noted  that  different  Greek  words  are  em- 
ployed in  the  two  cases.  Ebrard,  in  the  latter  instance,  renders, 
"  Hold  me  not ;  I  have  not  yet  ascended."  Euthymius  and 
Theophylact,  followed  by  Archbishop  Thomson,^  interpret  thus  : 
"  Death  has  now  set  a  gulf  between  us.  Touch  not,  as  you 
once  might  have  done,  this  body  which  is  now  glorified  by  its 
conquest  over  death,  for  with  this  body  I  ascend  to  the  Father." 
Meyer  thinks  she  wished  to  ascertain  whether  the  Saviour,  whom 
she  recognized,  was  present  in  his  material  form,  or  with  a 
spiritual  body.  She  sought  to  obtain  by  the  sense  of  touch, 
the  knowledge  which  the  eye  could  not  give  her. 

For  other  jDoints  of   difhculty,  see  under  "  Numbers "  and 

"  Time." 

Christ's  revelation  of  truth,  complete.  Much  kept  hack  by  him. 

All  thinps  that  I  have  hoard  of  my  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
Father,  I  have  made  known  unto  you.  you,  but  ye  caunot  bear  them  now. 
John  XV.  15.  John  xvi.  12. 

May  not  the  first  text  mean,  "  All  things  that  I  have  heard 
from  my  Father,  which  were  designed  for  you  at  present,  I 
have  made  known  to  you.  The  message  which  I  received  for 
you  I  have  faithfully  communicated."  Everything  which  the 
Father  had,  up  to  that  time,  wished  him  to  make  known,  he 
had  made  known  to  them. 

Alford  thinks  that  the  first  passage  is  proleptioully  spoken 
of  the  state  in  which  he  would  place  them  under  the  Spirit. 
A  future  event,  viewed  as  determined  and  certain,  is  spoken  of 
as  having  already  taken  place.     The  "  many  thuigs,"  of   the 

'  Compare  John  xx.  17  and  Matt,  xxviii.  9. 
»  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  u.  1380. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  331 

second   text,  are  what  was   tauglit   by  the    Saviour  after   his 

resurrection,'  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  a  subsequent  time. 

Christ's  use  of  parables  unvarying.         Parables  sometimes  omitted. 
Matt.  xiii.  34.  Matt,  v.-vii. 

Ebrard  ^  has  correctly  pomted  out  that  the  first  passage  has 
reference  to  9.  particular  occasion.  "  Christ's  words,  that  day, 
were  parabolical." 

Daniel  highly  exalted.  Entirely  unnoticed. 

Dan.  ii.  43.  Dan.  iii.  12. 

Bertholdt  thinks  it  very  strange  that   Daniel,  who  was  so 

high  in  office,  is  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  his  three 

friends.     But,  as  Bertholdt  himself  admits,  Daniel  may  have 

been  absent,  at  this  time,  from  the  capital  upon  some  business 

of  state.     Herzfeld  supposes  that  not  all  the  dignitaries  of  the 

empire  were  invited  to  the  dedication  of  the  image,  and  that 

Daniel  was  not  included  among  those  who  received  invitations. 

David  detained  at  Saul's  court.  Not  thus  detained. 

And  David  came  to  Saul,  and  stood  But  David  went  and  returned  from 

before  him  :  and  lie  loved  bim  greatly;  Saul  to  feed  his  father^s  sheep  at  lieth- 

and  he  became   his   armor-bearer.     1  lehem.    1  Sara.  xvii.  15. 
Sam.  xvi.  21. 

The  mere  fact  that  David  "  stood  before  "  Saul,  and  became 

his  "armor-bearer"  (adjutant)  by  no    means  necessitates  the 

supposition  that  David  remained  constantly  afterward  in  Saul's 

service.     If,  as  we  know,  Joab  had  ten  armor-bearers,^  Saul 

probably  had  at  least  as  many,  and,  among  them,  some  skilled 

m  war.     So  that,  when  Saul's  melancholy  left  him,  he  doubtless 

allowed  David  to  return  to  his  father's  service.     The  second 

text,  according  to    Keil,  asserts  that   David  "went  back  and 

forth  from  Saul  to  feed  his  father's  sheep  in  Bethlehem."     In 

xviii.  2,  we  see  David  taken  into  permanent  employ  by  Saul. 

David  forbidden  to  build  temple,  — one  reason.  A  different  reason. 

1  Chron.  xvii.  4-6, 12.  1  Chron.  xxviii.  .3. 

Here  is  not,  as  De  Wette  *  imagines,  a  contradiction,  but  two 

concurrent  reasons  for  the  same  thing,  neither  of   which  ex- 

1  See  Luke  xxiv.  27 ;  Acts  i.  3.  ^  Gospel  History,  pp.  24?,  246. 

»  See  2  Sam.  xviii.  15.  ■•  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  297. 


832  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

eludes  the  other.     Jehovah  had  not  as  yet  required  the  buildmg 

of  a  temple,  neither  would  David  be  the  proper  man  to  buUd 

such  an  edifiee.     Neither  the  appropriate  time  nor  the  fit  man 

had  come. 

David's  officers,  —  one  list.  A  different  list. 

2  Sam.  viii.  16-18.  2  Sam.  xx.  23-26. 

In  this  case  there  was  an  interval  of  more  than  twenty  years. 

During  that  time,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  some  changes 

occurred,  either  by  death  or  displacement.     As  to  the  fact  that, 

in  the  first  passage,  Ahimelech  the  son,  and  in  the  second  Abi- 

athar  the  father,  is  spoken  of  as  priest,^  see  under  "Ahimelech's 

priesthood."     "  Seraiah,"  "  Shavsha,"  "  Shisha,"  and  "  Sheva  " 

were  different  forms  of  the  same  name. 

David's  relation  to  Achish  unfriendly.  Pleasant. 

1  Sam.  xxi.  12-15,        1  Sam.  xxvii.  3-6;  xxix.  6-9. 

Several   years   intervened   between   the  two   visits   to   the 

Philistine   king.     During  that  period  David  had  been  fiercely 

persecuted  by  Saul ;   and  Achish,  aware  of   this  fact,  kindly 

received    the    Hebrew  fugitive,  with  the  hope  that  he  would 

prove   a   valuable   ally    against    Saul,    their    common    enemy. 

Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  Ilengstenberg  think  that  ''  Achish  "  was 

the  personal  name,  and  "  Abimelech "  ^  the  hereditary  title  of 

the  Philistine  monarch. 

David's  sons,  —  one  list.  A  second  list.  A  third  list. 

2  Sam.  V.  14-16.  1  Chron.  iii.  5-8.  1  Cliron.  xiv.  3-7. 

Shammiiah.  Sliimcah.  Shanunua. 

Elishua.  Elisliama.  Elishua. 

Eliada.  Eliada.  Beeliada. 

Eliphalet.  Eliphclet.  Eliplialet. 

Eliphclet.  Elpalet. 

Nosah.  Nopih. 

We  give  merely  the  differences  of  the  three  lists.  There  is 
not  the  least  doubt  that  these  variations  arose  almost  entirely 
from  the  blunders  of  copyists.  Of  the  first  two  names,  and 
the  fourth,  in  each  series,  no  more  need  be  said.     "  Beeliada  " 

•  Comp.  Bible  Commentary  on  2  Sam.  Tiii.  17.        ^  See  Ps.  xxxiv.  title. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  383 

is  a  different  form  of  "  Eliada "  —  compounded  with  Baal, 
instead  of  EL  One  "  Eliphelet,"  or  "  Eli:)alet,"  together  with 
"  Nogah,"  as  Eawlinson  and  KeU  think,  died  in  infancy,  hence 
is  omitted  in  Samuel.  Rashi  and  others  say  that  "  Chileab," 
2  Sam.  iii.  3,  is  another  name  for  "  Daniel,"  1  Chron.  iii.  1 ; 
Houbigant  and  Rawlinson  maintain  that  we  have  here  a  tran- 
scriber's mistake. 

David's  sons  priests.  Xo  priests  except  house  of  Aaron. 

2  Sam.  viii.  18.  Num.  iii.  10;  xvi.  40. 

The  Hebrew  word  ''  cohen,"  used  ui  the  first  text,  means  not 
only  a  priest,  but  also  a  "  servant,  a  minister,  a  counsellor  per- 
forming service."  So  Fuerst,  Keil,  Movers,  and  Saalschiitz. 
Gesenius  and  De  Wette  take  the  meaning  to  be,  domestic 
priests,  or  spiritual  advisers.  Ewald  ^  thinks  that  the  priestly 
dignity  was  by  divine  direction  extended  to  David ;  Mr. 
Plumptre,-  that  Da^•id  and  his  sons  may  have  been  admitted  to 
"an  honorary,  titular  priesthood." 

David  tempted  by  the  Lord.^  Tempted  by  Satan. 

The  anper  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  And  Satan  stood  up  ajrainst  Israel, 

against  Israel,   and  he  moved  David  and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel, 

against  them  to  say,  Go,  number  Israel  1  Chron.  xxi.  1. 
and  Judah.    2  Sam.  xxiv.  1. 

It  is  consistent  with  Hebrew  modes  of  thought  that  whatever 
occurs  in  the  world,  under  the  overruling  providence  of  God, 
—  whatever  he  suffers  to  take  jilace,  —  should  be  attributed 
to  his  agency.  In  not  preventing,  as  he  might  have  done,  its 
occurrence,  he  is  viewed  as  in  some  sense  bringing  about  the 
event.  Hence  the  act  of  Satan  might  be.  in  tltis  indirect  way, 
referred  back  to  God,  as  the  Governor  of  the  universe. 

Another  explanation  is,  that  the  Hebrew  word  "sjitan"^ 
when  used,  as  ui  the  SQpond  text,  without  the  article,  denotes 

>  Histor>'  of  Israel,  iii.  133,  200. 

*  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2576. 

^  See  pp.  79-81  infra.    Also  Stanley,  History  of  Jewish  Church,  p.  52 

*  See  this  word  applied  to  the  nnr/el  which  withstood  Balaam,  Num.  xxii. 
22;  to  David,  1  Sam.  xxix.  4;  to  Iladiiil,  1  Kin^s  xi.  14. 


334  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

simply    an    adversary.       Hence    Boothroyd,    Davidson,^   and 

Hervey  ^   render,  "  An    adversary    stood   up    against    Israel." 

The  latter  critic  also  interprets  tlie  first  text  thus:  "For  one 

moved    David   against    them " ;    adding    that    some   unnamed 

person,  who  proved  himself  an  enemy  to  the  best  interests  of 

David  and  Israel,  urged  the  king  to  number  the  people. 

David's  warriors,  —  one  list.  A  different  list. 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  8-39.  1  Chron.  xi.  11-47. 

With  reference  to  such  cojiyist's  variations  as  Hararite  and 
Harorite,  Shammah  and  Shammoth,  Anethothite  and  Antothite, 
Barhumite  and  Baliarumite,  further  remark  is  superfluous. 
The  first  list  contains  thirty-one  names ;  the  second,  forty-seven. 
Of  the  first  thirty-one  names  of  the  passage  in  Chronicles  there 
are  four  not  found  in  the  list  in  Samuel,  and,  conversely,  five 
names  in  the  catalogue  of  Samuel  do  not  ai^pear  in  the  other 
list.  This  difference  is  explicable  upon  the  hypothesis  that 
the  two  lists  refer  to  somewhat  different  times.  The  list  in 
Chronicles  refers  to  the  time  when  David  became  king  over  all 
Israel  (see  vs.  1 0) ;  the  other  probably  points  to  a  later  epoch. 
During  the  interval,  some  persons  died  or  left  the  army,  and 
others  took  their  places.'' 

It  is  conceded  by  critics  generally  that  the  original  text  of 
the  eighth  verse  in  Samuel  has  suffered  from  copyists,  but 
should  be  translated  substantially  thus,  "  Jashobeam  the  Hach- 
monite,  the  chief  of  tlie  captains,  he  swung  his  spear  over 
eight  hundred  slain  at  once."  So  Hervey,  Keil,  Kennicott,* 
Gesenius,"  and  others,  who  decide  that  the  correct  reading  is 
found  in  Chronicles.  Accoi'diiig  to  the  best  authorities,  the 
words  rendered  "Adino  the  Eznite"  should  be  interpreted, 
"  he  lifted  up,  swung,  or  brandUhed  Jits  spear  "  ;  so  that  the 
italic  words  in  the  I^iiglish  version  are  unnecessary. 

'  Introil.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  88. 

'  Hihie  Comiiiciitiirv  on  '2  Sam.  xxiv.  1. 

"  Sec  Kawlin.soii  in  Hihlc  Commeutaxy  on  1  Chron.  xi.  26. 

*  Di.sscrtations,  i.  71-1'.'8. 

*  Thesaurus,  pp.  991,  995. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  336 

Edomitea  obstnicted  Israel's  passage.  Permilterl  it. 

Num.  XX.  18-21;  Judg.  xi.  17, 18.  Deut.  ii.  4,  8. 

At  first,  when  the  Israelites  approached  the  precipitous, 
well-nigh  impregnable  western  frontier,  the  Eclomites  refused 
them  transit ;  but  when  the  Israelites  had  "  compassed  the  land 
of  Edom,"  and  came  to  the  open,  unprotected  eastern  border, 
the  Edomites  no  longer  dared  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude 
toward  them.^ 

Edomites  refused  supplies.  Furnished  them. 

Num.  XX.  19,  20.  Deut.  ii.  28,  29. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  Edomites  at  first  refused  hospitalities 
to  the  Israelites  ;  but  at  the  later  period  they  made  a  virtue  of 
necessity,  and  sought  to  turn  the  matter  to  their  own  advantage 
by  selling  the  necessaries  of  life  to  the  Israelites. 

•  As  to  the  similar  fact  that  the  Moabites  did  not  "  meet  the 
Israelites  with  bread  and  water "  (Deut.  xxiii.  3,  4)  ;  though 
they  "sold"  them  these  articles  (Deut.  ii.  28,  29),  Kurtz ^  sees, 
in  the  first  circumstance,  "  a  jiroof  of  their  indifference,  if  not 
of  their  hostile  feelings  toward  the  Israelites,"  and  in  the  last, 
"  simply  a  manifestation  of  their  selfish  and  grasping  disposition." 

Eli  corrected  his  sons.  Did  not  correct  them. 

1  Sam.  ii.  23.  24.  1  Sam.  iii.  13. 

That  is,  he  reproved  them  either  too  leniently,  or  not  till 
they  had  become  hardened  and  ungovernable.  His  attempts 
at  discipline  amounted  to  nothing. 

Eliakim  succeeded  Josiah.  Succeeded  Jehoahaz. 

2  Kini^s  xxiii.  34.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  4. 

Bahr  and  Rawlinson  take  the  words,  "in  the  room  of  Josiah," 
as  indicating  that  Nechoh  regarded  Jehoahaz  simply  as  a  usurper 
—  the  latter  having  been  raised  to  the  throne  without  Nechoh's 
consent. 

Elimelech,  indigent.  Had  a  competence. 

Kuthi-1.  Ruth  i.  21. 

To    Bertholdt's  "  discrepancy,"   Davidson    replies    that    the 

^  So  Ilcnjrstenhcr^,  Kfil,  Leake,  Robinson,  and  others. 
'  History  of  O.  C.  iii.  385. 
28 


336  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

fulness  and  emptiness  relate  to  Naomi's  husband  and  sons  who 

had  died,  not  to  property  as  Bertholdt  imagines. 

Elizabeth,  of  tribe  of  Aaron.  Of  tribe  of  Judah. 

Luke  i.  5.  .  Luke  i.  27,  36. 

The  mere  fact  that  Elizabeth  was  "  cousin  "  to  one  of  the 

tribe  of   Judah  proves  nothing  as  to  her  own  tribal  descent. 

Intermarriages  between  the  tribes  were  allowed,  except  in  the 

case   of  heiresses.     Aaron  himself   married  into  the  tribe  of 

Judah.^ 

Elhanan  sleio  Goliath.  Slew  Lahmi. 

2  Sam.  xxi.  19.  1  Chron.  xx.  5. 

The  Goliath  here  mentioned  may,  for  aught  we  know,  have 

been  Goliath  junior !    Most  critics,  Michaelis,  Thenius,  Dathe, 

Movers,  Winer,  Keil,  Deutsch,^  Grove,^  Hervey,  and  others, 

maintain,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  expression  in  Samuel  is 

defective,  and    that  Chronicles   gives    the  true    reading.     Dr. 

Kennicott  *  shows  clearly  how  the  copyist's  mistake  occurred. 

Elkanah,  an  Ephrathite.  A  Levite. 

1  Sam.  i.  1.  1  Chron.  vi.  16-27. 

He  is  called  an  Ephrathite  (Ephraimite),  because  he  lived 

within  the  borders  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraira.     So  far  as  his  civil 

standing  was  concerned,  he,  although  a  Levite,  belonged  to  the 

tribe  of  Ephraim.* 

Esau's  ivive^,  —  one  list.  A  tlifferent  statement. 

Judith    the    daufrlitor  of   Boori   the        Adah  tho  djiiichtcr  of  Klon  the  Hit- 

ilittito,  and  IJasliematli   tlip  daughter  tite,  and  Ahulibnniah  tlie  daufrhter  of 

of  Klon  the  Hittite.     Cion.  xxvi.  34.  Anah  the  daujrhtpr  of  Zibeon  tlie  lliv- 

Mahahitli   the  dautrliter  of  Islimael,  ite.    And  Baslieniath,  Ishmael's  dauph- 

Abraham'.s  son,  the  sister  of  Kebajoth.  ter,   sister  of  Kebajoth.    Oen.  xxxvi. 

Gen.  xxviii.  9.  2,  3. 

Some  critics  think  Esau  had  six  wives  ;  others,  five ;  others, 
three.  It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  wives  in  the  second  list 
bear    names   different   from  those  corresponding   in  the  first. 

'  Compare  Ex.  vi.  23;  1  Chron.  ii.  10. 
^  See  Kitto,  i.  76.". 

^  Smirli's  15il)le  Diet.,  i.  697.    Sec,  on  the  other  side,  Ewald's  History  of 
Israel,  iii.  70,  and  note. 
■•  Dissertations,  i.  78-S2. 
*  See  similar  case  of  the  "  Levite  of  Bethlchcm-Judah,"  Judges  xvii.  9. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  ^^7 

Ilengstenberg/  Keil,  and  Lange  account  for  this  by  the  fact 

that  women  at  their  marriage  received  new  names.     On  this 

hypothesis,  Bashemath,  daughter  of  Ishmael,  is  the  same  with 

Mahalath ;  Adah,  daugliter  of  Elon  the  Hittite,  is  the  same  with 

Bashemath  ;  and  Aholibamah,  daughter  of  Anah  and  [grand-] 

daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite,  is  identical  with  Judith,^  daughter 

of  Beeri  the  Hittite.     Anah  is  also  called  "  Beeri "  ("  man  of 

the  springs"),  from  the  fact  that  he  had  found  certain  "warm 

springs"  in  the  wilderness.^     As  to  his  nationality,  we  have 

spoken  previously. 

Eutychus  was  dead.  His  life  was  in  him. 

Acts  XX.  9.  Acts  XX.  10. 

The    latter   words   were    uttered    after   Paul   wrought   the 

miracle.     As  to  the  somewhat  analogous  case  of  the  maiden,* 

of  whom,  though  "  dead,"  Christ  said,  "  She  is  not  dead,  but 

sleepeth,"  the  very  obvious  explanation  is,  that,  relatively  to  his 

power,  she  was  not  dead.     In  other  words,  he  could  awaken 

her  from  death  as  easily  as  could  others  from  ordinary  sleep. 

Genealogical  lists,  —  one  form.  Another  form. 

1  Chron.  ix.  1-34.  Neh.  xi.  3-36. 

The  first  passage  refers  to  the  early  inhabitants,  previous  to 
the  exile.  This  is  clear,  from  the  twentieth  verse,  which 
represents  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar  as  ruler  over  them  in 
time  past.  The  second  passage  refers  to  the  post-exile  in- 
habitants, who  lived  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  As  to  the 
similarity  of  names  in  the  two  lists,  it  may  be  said  that,  after 
the  exile,  naturally  those  very  families  which,  or  whose  ancestors, 
had  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  in  earlier  times,  went  back  to  that  city. 
Then,  too,  the  recurrence  of  the  same  names  in  families  is  a 
familiar  incident.     People  liked  to  name  children  after  their 

'  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  225,  226. 

-  Mtirpli}'  ami  others  think  that  Judith  died  without  male  issue,  hence 
her  name  is  omitted  in  chap,  xx.xvi. 

^  So  Gen.  xxxvi.  24  should  be  interpreted,  accordint;  to  Fuerst,  Gesenius, 
IIen<^stenl)crjr,  Murphy,  Keil,  and  Knobel. 

*  Luke  viii.  52,  53. 

29 


338  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

grandfathers,  or  other  near  relatives.^  This  is  Keil's  view. 
On  the  other  hand,  Bertheau,  Movers,  and  Rawlinson  main- 
tain that  the  two  lists  refer  to  the  same  period,  and  were  drawn 
from  much  fuller  documents ;  the  differences  between  the  lists 
being  due  to  condensation  and  omission  on  the  part  of  the 
authors,  as  well  as  to  the  blunders  of  copyists. 

Davidson  ^  says  that  the  variations  between  the  lists  should 
not  be  pronounced  "  corruptions,"  unless  it  could  be  shown  that 
they  refer  to  exactly  the  same  time.  The  catalogue  in  Nehe- 
miah  relates  to  an  earher  period.  Yet  the  interval  between 
them  was  not  great,  since  several  persons  named  in  Nehemiah 
were  still  aUve  accortling  to  the  account  in  Chronicles. 

Gershom's  relatives,  —  names.  Different  names. 

His  father,  Moses,  Ex.  ii.  22.  Manassch,  Jud;;.  xviii.  30. 

His  son,  Libni,  1  Chron.  vi.  20.  Laadan,  1  Ciiron.  xxiii.  7. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that,  in  Judges,  for  '*  Manasseh  "  we 
should  read  "Moses,"  —  the  name  liaving  been  disguised  by 
Jewish  copyists,  to  prevent  supposed  disgrace  to  Moses  re- 
sulting from  the  idolatry  of  his  grandson.^  Libni  and  Laadan 
are,  probably,  mere  variations  of  the  same  name. 

Giheonites  were  Hivites.  Remnant  of  Amorites. 

Josh.  xi.  19.  2  Sam.  xxi.  2. 

The  term  "  Amorite  "  is  often  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense, 
as  equivalent  to  "  Canaanite  " ;  and  especially  as  denoting  that 
j)art  of  the  Canaanite  nation  inhabiting  the  hill-country,  that 
is,  the  Ilivites.''  As  the  Canaanites,  witli  the  exception  of  tlie 
Gibeonites  and  a  few  others,  were  supposed  to  be  exterminated, 
the  latter  may  well  have  been-  styled  the  "  remnant "  of  the 
Amorites  or  Canaanites. 

Several  analogous  cases  may  as  well  be  considered  here. 

'  See  intimation  in  Luke  i.  61.    Also  sec  numerous  striking  examples 
cited  in  llervey's  "Genealogies  of  our  Lord,"  pp.  141-159. 
-  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  l^T. 
■'  So  Uashi,  Kimchi,  and  the  critics. 
*  Compare  Gen.  xv.  16,  and  Num.  xiii.  29;  Deut.  i.  20,  21. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  339 

Hiram's  mother  a  Naphtalite.  A  Danite. 

1  Kings  vii.  14.  2  Chron.  ii.  l-l. 

Bahr,  Blunt,^  and  Thenius  say  that  she  was  of  the  neigh- 
boring city  "  Dan,"  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  bordering  upon 
Tyre,  lieuce  she  married  a  man  of  the  latter  country. 

Joseph's  2}urchasers  Midianites.  IshmaeUtes. 

Gen.  xxxvii.  28,  36.  Gen.  xxxvii.  25,  28. 

Keil  thinks  the  two  tribes  were  often  confounded  on  account 

of  their  common  descent  from  Abraham  and  the  similarity  of 

their  customs  and  mode  of   life.     Lange   suggests   that  Ish- 

maelites  may  have  been  the  proprietors  of  the  caravan,  which 

was  made  up  mostly  of  Midianites. 

Moses'  wife  a  MkUanite  vjoman.  An  Ethiopian. 

Ex.  ii.  16,i21.  Num.  xii.  1. 

Possibly  "  Cushite  "  and  *'  Midianite  "  may  be  used  inter- 
changeably (see  Hab.  iii.  7).  A  better  solution  is  that  Zipporah 
had  died,  and  Moses  was  married  to  a  woman  of  Ethiopian 
origin.  Ewald'  adopts  the  latter  opinion,  also  maintaining  that 
Keturah  was  a  wife  taken  by  Abraham  during  the  thirtj-eight 
years  which  he  lived  after  Sarah's  death. 

Obed-edom  a  Gittite.  A  Levite. 

2  Sam.  vi.  10.  1  Chron.  xv.  17,  IS,  21. 

He  was  called  '•  Gathite,"  or  "  Gittite,"  because  born  in  the 

Lcvitical  city  of  Gath-rimmou  (Keil),  or  living  at  Moresheth- 

gath  (Ewald).3 

Woman  a  Canaanite.  A  Syro-phenician. 

Mutt.  XV.  22.  Mark  vii.  26. 

She  lived  in  that  part  of  Canaan  called  "  Syro-Phoenicia," 
and  was  herself  a  '-  Greek,"  that  is,  a  Gentile,  as  opposed  to  a 
Jew*  (see  Rom.  ii.  9,  10). 

We  now  return  from  our  digression. 

Hazael  and  Jehu  anointed  by  Elijah.  By  Elisha. 

1  Kings  xix.  15, 16.  2  Kings  viii.  7-15;  ix.  1-10. 

The  word  "  anoint,"  in  the  first  passage,  is  used  figuratively, 

*  Coincidences,  pp.  117, 118  (Am,  ed.).        -  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  178,  note. 

*  History  of  Israel,  iii.  127.         *  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  967,  and  iv.  8149. 


340  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

as  in  Judges  ix.  8,  to  denote  ''  divine  consecration  to  the  regal 

and  prophetic  offices."     Elijali  did  not,  says  Biihr,  understand 

the  anointing  literally.     He  was  simply  required  to  announce, 

either  in  person  or  by  proxy,  to  the  three  men  named,  their 

divine  call  to  the  performance  of  regal  or  prophetic  functions. 

And  the  injunction  (correctly  rendered,  "  And  thou  shalt  go 

and   anoint ")  left    Elijah   free  to  choose   his    own    time   for 

executing  these  commissions.     Doubtless  he  gave  it  in  charge 

to  Elisha,  his  successor,  to  carry  out  to  the  full  what  remained 

unaccomplished. 

Hezekiah  reduced  to  poverty.  Possessed  great  treasures. 

2  Kings  xviii.  14-16.  Isa.  xxxix.  2,  6. 

The  second  passage  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  Hezekiah's 

re'gn,  when  he  enjoyed  great  prosperity,  and  many  brought 

"gifts"  and  "presents"  to  him,  and  he  was  "magnified  in  the 

sight  of  all  nations."  ^     Thus  his  fortunes  were  fully  retrieved. 

Hezekiah's  passover  unequalled.  Surpassed  by  Josiak's. 

2Chron.  xxx.  26.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  18. 

Hezekiah's  feast  surpassed  all  that  preceded  it  since  the  days 

of  Solomon,  but  was  itself  eclipsed  by  the  later  one  of  king 

Josiah.     The  superiority  of  Josiali's  passover  consisted  in  these 

points,  —  "  All  Judah  and  Israel  "  participated  ;  it  was  held  on 

the   legal  day;  and  all  the   people  were  ceremonially  clean.'' 

This  was  not  true  of  Hezekiah's  passover. 

Israelites'  condition  in  desert  comfortable.      They  endured  privations. 

Dent,  ii.7 ;  xxxii.  13, 14.  Ex.  xvi.  2,  3 ;  Num.  xi.  4-6. 

It  is  clear,  from  the  narrative,  that  the  people  were,  at  some 

particular  times,  in  a  state  of  destitution,^  but  that  generally 

they  were  well   supplied  with   food,  and  abundantly  so  upon 

certain  occasions.     As  to  the  alleged  impossibility  of  so  vast  a 

multitude,*  together  with  their  flocks  and    herds,  finding    the 

needful  sustenance  during  their  wanderings  in  the  desert,  it  is 

>  2  Chron.  xxxii.  2.3,  27-29. 

'  Compare  2  CJiron.  xxx.  2,  .3, 17-20,  and  xxxv.  18. 

"  Deut.  viii.  •!,  15. 

♦  Lwaid  says,  "about  two  millions,"  History  of  Israel,  ii.  196. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  341 

to  be  carefully  noted  that,  from  tlie  present  sterile  and  desolate 
condition  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  we  cannot  infer  that  in 
former  times  it  was  equally  barren  and  dreary  as  now.  Eminent 
travellers  and  scholars  assign,  for  believing  that  that  territory 
was  far  more  productive  than  at  present,  the  following  reasons. 

Ewald  ' :  "  Destruction  of  good  land  by  sand  thrown  upon  it 
by  the  winds  of  the  desert " ;  "  change  in  the  temperature  of 
the  soil " ;  and  "  increasing  idleness  or  barbarism  in  the  in- 
habitants, which  is  indisputable  in  this  case." 

Stanley,^  following  Ritter  :  The  considerable  decrease  of  the 
vegetation  of  the  wadys  (valleys)  ;  the  denudation  of  the  soil  by 
the  ruthless  destruction  of  acacia-trees  in  manufacturing  charcoal, 
the  chief  article  of  traffic  ;  and  the  diminution  of  the  jiopulation, 
consequently  of  the  size  and  number  of  cultivated  spots. 

"  When  Niebuhr  ^  visited  that  country,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  last  century,  large  sup2)lies  of  vegetable  produce  were 
exported  regularly  to  Egypt,  showing  that  the  original  fertility 
was  not  even  then  exhausted." 

Ritter  *  speaks  of  the  "  colonies,  chapels,  churches,  hospices, 
convents,  bishoprics,  and  Christian  communities,"  existing  there 
so  late  as  between  the  third  and  seventh  centuries  of  our  era ; 
and  of  the  fact  that  there  was  "  more  building,  more  artificial 
irrigation,  more  culture  of  the  palm-tree,  and  more  agi-icultural 
prosperity  in  general "  than  is  seen  there  in  later  times. 

Stanley  *  mentions  the  "  numerous  remains  of  cells,  gardens, 
houses,  chapels,  and  churches,  now  deserted  and  ruined,"  which 
go  to  show  that  the  desert  was  not  always  the  dreary  waste  that 
it  is  now.  And  Ewald"  says  that  "  the  most  recent  travellers 
have  repeatedly  remarked  that  the  country  shows  clear  indications 

'Vol.  ii.  p.  197. 

*  Sliiai  and  Palestine,  pp.  25-29  (American  edition). 
'  Bible  Commentary,  i.  246. 

*  Geography  of  Palestine  and  Sinaitic  Peninsula,!.  10, 11  (Gage's  ti-ana- 
lation. 

'^  Page  29. 
» Page  197. 

29* 


342  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE    BIBLE. 

of  having  been  formerly  much  more  extensively  cultivated." 
The  le_gitimate  inference  is,  that  the  "  wilderness  of  Sinai "  was 
formerly  vastly  more  productive  and  populous  than  at  present. 
The  following  may  be  enumei-ated  as  means  of  support  en- 
joyed by  the  Israelites  during  the  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the 
desert : 

1.  The  miracle  of  the  manna,  continued  throughout.  Ex. 
xvi.  35. 

2.  The  milk  and  Jlesh  of  their  Jlochs  and  herds.  They  came 
out  of  Egypt  with  "  very  much  cattle "  (Ex.  xii.  38).  Prof. 
Palmer,'  the  latest  and  most  scientific  explorer  of  the  Sinaitic 
country,  says  that  the  flocks  and  herds  of  the  Israelites  "would 
affoj'd  them  ample  means  of  subsistence,  as  do  those  of  the 
Arabs  of  the  present  day,  whom  they  undoubtedly  resembled 
in  their  mode  of  life." 

3.  Agricidture  to  a  certain  extent.  We  are  not  to  imagine 
that  they  spent  their  time  in  marching  and  countermarching, 
in  military  order,  through  the  desert,  "  striking  camp  in  the 
morning  and  pitcliing  it  again  at  night,  daily,  for  forty  years  — 
and  that  within  the  compass  of  a  few  hundred  miles."  It  is 
altogether  probable  that,  during  the  thirty-eight  years '^  the 
incidents  of  which  were  not  recorded  by  the  sacred  writer,  the 
people  led,  for  the  most  part,  a  tranquil  and  comparatively 
settled  life ;  being  scattered  over  a  very  wide  extent  of  terri- 
tory, and  engaging  somewhat  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil. 

Dr.  Davidson  ^  observes :  "  As  the  tracts  in  which  they 
roamed  were  very  fertile  in  some  places,  producing  a  great 
variety  of  vegetables  and  fruit  ;  as  there  were  numerous 
villages  and  posts  throughout  it;  the  Israelites  were  not  witliout 
the  natural  and  spontaneous  productions  of  the  earth.  They 
tilled  the  oases,  and  reaped  the  produce." 

4.  Some  intercourse  and  trajffic  with  other  nations.     The 

'  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  426  (American  edition). 
»  See  Dcut.  ii.  14. 

*  Introfl.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  820,  827.    As  to  stations  of  Israelites,  see  under 
"  Places." 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  343 

Israelites  had,  besides  their  flocks  and  herds,  gold  and  silver  in 
considerable  quantities,  and  could  procure  certain  necessaries 
of  life  from  the  Ishmaelites,  ISIidianites,  and  Edomites,  among 
whom  they  were. 

As  to  their  Jlocks  and  herds,  these  found  sufficient  pasturage 
in  the  numerous  fertile  wadys  through  which  they  roamed. 

On   the   whole,  we   may  conclude,    with    Ewald,'  that  the 

Israelites  subsisted,  at  times  "  in  a  condition  of  great  privation 

and  trial,  certainly,  —  of  which,  indeed,  in  all   the  traditions, 

there  is  frequent  complaint,  —  but  still    so  that  a  frugal  and 

laborious  people  would  not  absolutely  perish." 

Israelites  dwelt  in  tents.  They  dwelt  in  booths. 

Ex.  xATi.  16.  Lev.  xxiii.  42,  43. 

The  word  "  ohel,"  tent,  means  also  a  dweUing-house,  or 
habitation,  hence  might,  perhaps,  include  booths.  Neither  pas- 
sage asserts  that  all  the  people  dwelt  in  "tents,"  or  all  in 
"  booths."  It  is  quite  probable  that,  when  they  first  emerged 
from  Egypt,  they  were  poorly  provided  with  actual  "  tents," 
and  hence  sheltered  themselves  with  "  booths  "  and  other  rude 
structures.^     A  little  later  all  may  have  possessed  tents. 

Israelites  imitated  the  heathen.  Did  not  imitate  them. 

Ye  have  not  walked  in  my  statutes,        Neither  have  done  according  to  the 
neither  executed    my  judgments,  but    judgments  of  the  nations  that  are  round 
have  done  after  the  manners  of  the    about  you.     fclzok.  v.  7 
heathen    that   are   round  about   you.        Yet  liast  thou  not  walked  after  their 
Ezek.  xi.  12.  ways,   nor  done    after  their  abomina- 

tions: but  as  if  that  were  a  very  little 
thing,  thou  wast  corrupted  more  than 
they.  In  all  thy  ways.    Ezek.  xvi.  47. 

They  had  imitated  the  heathen  in  some  respects,  but  not  in 
others.  The  first  passage  at  the  right  may  denote  that  the 
Israelites  had  not  commended  themselves  to  the  judgment  of 
the  heathen,  but  had  pursued  a  course  which  even  the  latter 
would  pronounce  inconsistent  and  discreditable.''  Or  both  texts 
of  the  series  may  simply  assert  that,  so  far  from  imitating  the 
heathen,  the  Israelites  had  gone  far  beyond  them  in  corruption. 

*  pp.  196, 197.  »  Green's  Pentateuch  Vindicated,  pp  69,  70. 

» See  Jcr.  li.  10, 11 


344  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

Israelites  listened  to  Moses.  Did  not  listen  to  him. 

Ex.  iv.  31.  Ex.  vi.  9. 

They  gave  heed  to  Moses  at  first ;  but  since  instant  deliv- 
erance did  not  come,  in  their  disappointment  and  impatience 
they  would  no  longer  hearken  to  him. 

Israelites  practised  idolatry.  They  served  the  Lord. 

Josh.  xxiv.  14,  23.         Josh.  xxii.  2, 11-34;  Judg.  ii.  7. 

Tlie  exhortation,  "  Put  away  the  strange  gods  which  are 
among  you  "  (or  "  within  you  "),  may  refer  to  a  lurking  ad- 
herence of  heart  to  idols.  Or,  possibly,  idolatry  may  have 
been  practised  secretly  by  a  few  persons,  unsuspected  by  the 
people  generally.  Whichever  were  the  case,  the  sin  was  at 
once  broken  off. 

Israelites'  repulse  of  Philistines  final.  It  was  not  final. 

1  Sam.  vii.  13.        1  Sam.  ix.  16;  x.  5;  xiii.  5,17. 

The  statement  that  the  Philistines  "  came  no  more  "  into  the 
land  of  Israel,  is  not  to  be  pressed  so  as  to  denote  an  expulsion 
for  all  time  to  come.  It  is  simply  a  popular,  idiomatic  way  of 
saying  that  they  came  no  more  at  that  time,  or  no  more  came 
successfully,  so  as  to  obtain  a  permanent  foothold. 

In  a  similar  manner  are  to  be  explained  the  statements  con- 
cerning Pharaoh-nechoh,  2  Kings  xxiv.  7  ;  Jer.  xxxvii.  5  ;  and 
concerning  the  Syrians,  2  Kings  vi.  23,  24. 

Israelites  resistless.  Not  irresistible. 

Deut.  xi.  25.  Josh.  vii.  4;  Judg.  i.  34. 

The  first  passage  was,  as  is  expressly  set  forth  in  the  context, 

a  conditional  promise.    The  conditions  not  being  complied  with, 

the  promise  was  no  longer  binding. 

Israelites  very  numerous.  They  were  very  weak. 

Num.  i.  46.  Dcut.  vii.  1,  7. 

The  texts  at  the  right  refer  to  the  time  when  Jacob  and  his 

family  went  down  into  Egypt     From  so  small  a  beginning 

there    had    sprung   a   nation    like  "  the    stars   of   heaven    for 

multitude."* 

•  Compare  Dent.  x.  22. 


HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  345 

Jacob  brought  out  of  Ec/i/pt.  He  died  in  Egypt. 

Gen.  xlvi.  4.  Gen.  xlix.  33. 

The  words,  "  I  will  there  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,"  *  show 

that  the  promise  was  to  be  fvilfilled  to  Jacob's  posterity,  and 

not   to  him  in  person.     Jacob's   body  was  carried  up  out  of 

Egypt,  and  buried  in  Canaan ;  his  descendants  were  brought 

out  of  Egypt,  according  to  the  promise. 

Jacob's  errand,  to  procure  a  wife.  To  escape  Esan's  anger. 

Gen.  xxviii.  2.  Gen.  xxvii.  42-45. 

Two  reasons  for  the  same  thing, — neither  excluding  the 
other.  Upon  the  same  principle  are  to  be  explained  the 
several  reasons  assigned  for  Moses'  exclusion  from  Canaan, — 
"unbelief,"  Num.  xx.  12;  "rebellion,"  Num.  xxvii.  14;  "tres- 
pass," Deut.  xxxii.  51 ;  "  rash  words,"  Ps.  cvi.  33.  Also,  those 
adduced  for  numbering  the  people, —  "taxation,"  Ex.  xxxviii. 
26 ;  a  "  military  enrolment,"  Num.  i.  2,  3 ;  ii.  32.^  In  like 
manner,  the  reasons  named  for  Saul's  rejection,  —  "unlawful 
sacrifice,"  1  Sam.  xiii.  12,  13;  "disobedience,"  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
18;  "consulting  the  necromancer,"  1  Chron.  x.  13. 

Jacob  purchased  the  birthright.  Obtained  it  by  deception. 

Gen.  XXV.  31-33.  Gen.  xxvii.  1-29 

This  "  discrepancy "  confounds  two  things  which  are  en- 
tirely distinct  —  the  "  birthright "  and  the  "  blessing."  *  Jacob 
purchased  the  former,  but  obtained  the  latter  by  fraud  and 
falsehood. 

Jacob  supported  by  the  bed's  head.  Supported  by  his  staff. 

Gen.  xlvii.  31.  Heb.  xi.  21. 

From  the  fact  that  the  latter  passage  speaks  of  Jacob  as 

"  dying,"  while  the  former  (compare  xlviii.  1)  represents  him 

as  not  yet  "  sick,"  it  is  probable  that  they  refer  to  different 

occasions.     If,  however,  one  so  extremely  old  and  feeble  as 

'  Gen.  xlvi.  3. 

-  In  both  case.",  only  males  above  twenty  years  of  age  were  reckoned. 
See  Ex.  xxx.  12-14.  The  .'^eeond  reckoninji,  Num.  i.,  was  probably  based 
on  the  former  one.    This  would  account  for  the  ajjrcemcnt  in  the  sum-total. 

"  riee  Gen.  xxvi.  36. 


346  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Jacob  was,  might,  although  not  actually  death-struck,  be  spoken 

of  as  "  dying,"  it  may  be  observed  that  the  same  Hebrew  word 

pronounced  "  mittah,"  denotes  a  bed,  but  pronounced  "  matteh," 

a  staff.    Our  present  Hebrew  Bible  exhibits  one  pronunciation  ; 

the    SejDtuagint  and    the    Epistle  to  the    Hebrews  follow  the 

other. 

Jehoiachin,  father  of  Salathiel.  He  was  "childless." 

Matt,  i.  12.  Jer.  xxii.  30. 

The    term  "  childless "  is    explained    by  the  statement  that 

"  no  man  of  his  seed  shall  prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of 

David,  and  ruling  any  more  in  Judah."     With  reference  to  a 

Imeal   successor,  he  was   "  childless."     Salathiel,  or  Shealtiel, 

probably  married  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  Neri,  hence  is 

reckoned  as  his  son  (Luke  iii.  27). 

Jehoiakim  had  no  successor.  Succeeded  by  his  son  Jehoiachin. 

Jer.  xxxvi.  30.  2  Kings  xxiv.  6. 

Jehoiachin's  reign  lasted  but  a  few  months,  and  was,  perhaps, 
subject  to  his  mother's  tutelage.  He  was  then  carried  captive 
to  Babylon,  and  his  uncle  made  king  in  his  stead.  The  Hebrew 
term  rendered  "  sit,"  in  Jeremiah,"  implies  some  degree  of 
permanence ;  hence  there  is  no  collision  between  the  passages. 

Jehoram's  sons  taken  captive.  Tliey  were  put  to  death. 

2  Chron.  xxi.  16, 17.  2  Chron.  xxii.  1. 

As  Keil  and  Rawlinsou  say,  first  taken  captive,  afterwards 
slain. 

Jehoshaphat  declines  Ahaziah's  aid.  Made  learjue  with  him. 

1  Kings  xxii.  49.  2  Chron.  xx.  35,  36. 

The  two  kings  at  first  engaged  in  ship-building  together. 

Their  ships  were  wrecked  at  Ezion-geber.     Jehoshaphat,  being 

informed  l)y  a  projihet  as  to  the  cause  of  this  calamity,  declined 

a  .second  jiropo.sul  from  Ahaziah. 

Jesus  approached  by  (he  centurion.  By  the  elders  of  the  Jews. 

Matt.  viii.  5.  Lulte  vii.  8. 

Alford  and  Kbrard  (liink  that  Matthew,  writing  in  a  con- 
densed style,  speaks  of  the  centurion  as  himself  doing  that 


H15T0EICAL   DISCEEPAyCTEB.  347 

which  he  reallv  accomplished  hy  proxy.     So  Bobinsoa.  who 

quotes  the  old  law-maxim,  -  Qui  iacit  per  aliom,  fadt  per  se." 

He  who  does  a  thing  by  another,  does  it  himself.     StiU,  it  is 

possible  that  the  centurion  first  salt  the  ddexs,  and  thai,  in  the 

intensity  of  his  anxiety  and  distress,  went  in  person  to  the 

Saviour, 

Upon   the  above   principle  is  to  be  explained   the  case  of 

Zebedee's  wife.     She  makes  a  certain    request  for   her  sons, 

3Iatt-  XX.  20  ;  they  make  it  for  themselv^  Mark  x-  35.     So 

with  regard  to  David :    He  kflled  Uriah,  2  Sam.  xiL  9 ;   the 

Ammonites  killed  him,  2  Sam.  xL  17,     In  like  manner,  the 

Levites  promulgated  the  "  blessings  **  and  "carses,"  De^iL  ixviL 

14,  15 ;  and  Joshua  did  it.  Josh.  viiL  34,  35.     So  the  priests 

bought  the  potter's  field.  Matt.  xxviL  6, 7 ;  and  Jndas  pordiased 

it,  that  is,  furnished  the  ocecaion  for  its  pordiase,  Acts  L  18. 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  that  figure  of  speedi  hy  which 

we  attribute  to  the  man  himself  any  act  wfaidi  he  has  dthar 

directly  or  indirectly  procured  to  be  done. 

Job's  children,  all  dead.  Same  mavimmg. 

Job  L  19;  viiL  4.  Job  xLs.  17. 

Davidson  takes  the   term  ~  chndren,"   in   the   second   text, 

as   denoting   "  grandchUdren."     Conant.    Delitzsch.    Gesenius, 

Schlottmann,  Stuhlmann.  Umbreii.  and  Winer  take  the  Hebrew 

"  b'ne  bitni "  as  equivalent  to  ~  my  brethren."  *     Wetzstein,' 

comparing  the  Arabic  idiom,  says  that  the  expression  denotes, 

^  all  my  relations  by  blood."     Nothing  in  the  passage  warrants 

the  inference  that  any  of  Job's  own  children  were  alive. 

John  identical  icith  Eliaf.  He  was  not  Elias. 

ilatt.  xriL  12, 13 ;  Mark  ix.  13.  John  L  21. 

In  a  figurative,  but  not  in  the  literal,  seaase  John  was  Elias. 

He  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  Ushbite  proph^,  and 

teas  the  Elias  of  his  day,     Omr  Saviour's  words.  "  K  ye  will 

receive  it"  (if  ye  can  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy), 

1  Compare  the  obvious  meaning  of  lOBS  in  Job  nL  10. 
*  Delitzsch  on  Job,  Vol.  ii.  p  416. 


348  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

"  this  is  Elias  which  was  to  come,"  *  show  that  a  literal  fulfilment 

was  not  intended. 

Joseph  hound  in  the  prison.  lie  was  not  bound. 

Gen.  xxxix.  20;  xl.  3.  Gen.  xxxix.  21,  22. 

Probably  he  was  bound  at  first ;  but  after  a  time,  as  his  true 
character  became  apparent,  his  chains  were  taken  off. 

As  to  the  "  keeper  of  the  prison,"^  in  whose  care  Joseph  was 
placed,  many  critics,  Delitzsch,  Keil,  Kurtz,  Lange,  and  others 
think  that  he  was  a  subordinate  ofiicial,  to  whom  Potiphar  in- 
trusted the  immediate  oversight  of  the  prison  and  its  inmates. 
The  "  captain  of  the  guard  "  mentioned  Gen.  xl.  4,  was  probably 
the  successor  of  Potiphar.^ 

Tlie  statement  that  Joseph  was  "  stolen "  (that  is,  carried 
away  secretly  and  by  force)  from  his  native  land  (Gen.  xl.  15) 
does  not  conflict  with  the  fact  that  he  was  "  sold  "  to  the  Ish- 
maelites  (xxxvii.  28). 

Joshua  conquered  certain  kings.  Their  cities  not  captured. 

Josh.  xii.  10,12,16,21,23.  Josh.  xv.  63;  xvi.  10;  xvii.  11,12; 

Judg.  i.  22-25. 

There  is  an  appreciable  difference  between  defeating  a  king 

in  battle,  and  gaining  possession  of  his  capital  city.     Hannibal 

several  times  vanquished  the  Roman  consuls,  but  never  captured 

the  city  of  Rome. 

Josiah  extirpated  idolatry.  It  had  been  destroyed  by  Manasseh. 

2  Kings  xxiii.  5-12;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3.  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  15. 

Manasseh  did  not  root  out  the  love  of  idolatry,  and  his  son 

Amon  countenanced  and   powerfully  encouraged  the  worship 

of  false  gods.     Hence,  when  Josiah,  in  his  twelfth  year,  began 

to  overthrow  idolatry,  he  needed  to  do  the  whole  work  over 

again.     The  statement  that  Josiah  destroyed  the  altars  which 

"  Manasseh    had  made "  *  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  these 

altars  had  been  not  "  destroyed,"  but  "  cast  out  of  the  city,"  by 

Manasseh,*  and  were  restored  by  his  successor  Amon ;  hence 

'  Matt.  xi.  14.  -  Gen.  xxxix.  21.  "  Smith's  15il).  Diet.,  ii.  1-105. 

*  2  Kings  xxiii.  12.  *2  Chron.  xxxiii.  15. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  349 

the  religious  zeal  of  Josiah  was  very  proiierly  directed  against 

them. 

Josiah's  sons,  — one  list.  A  different  list. 

The  first-born  Johanan,  the  second  Jehoahaz,  Eliakim  (Jehoiakim),  Mat- 

Jehoiakim,   the   third   Zedekiah,    the  taniah  (Zedekiah).  21iingsxxiii.  30, 34; 

fourth  8hallum.    1  Chron.  iii.  15.  xxiv.  17. 

Jehoahaz  is  called  Shallum  in  Jer.  xxii.  11.     Bleek '  thinks 

that  Shallum  assumed  the  name  ''  Jehoahaz  "  at  his  coronation. 

In    Rawliuson's   opinion,  Johanan  died   before  his  father,  or 

with  him  at  Megiddo. 

Judas'  death,  —  07ie  manner.  A  diverse  statement. 

And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  And  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asun. 

in  the  temple,  and  departed,  and  went  der  in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels 

and  hanged  himself.     Matt,  xxvii.  5.  gushed  out.    Acts  i.  18. 

Neither  of  these  statements  excludes  the  other.  Matthew 
does  not  deny  that  Judas,  after  hanging  himself,  fell  and  burst 
asunder  ;  Peter  does  not  assert  that  Judas  did  not  hang  himself 
previous  to  his  fall.  Probably  the  circumstances  were  much 
as  follows :  Judas  suspended  himself  from  a  tree  on  the  brink 
of  the  precipice  overhanging  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  the 
limb  or  the  rope  giving  way,  he  fell,  and  was  mangled  as 
described  in  Acts. 

Prof.  Hackett,-  who  recently  visited  the  supposed  scene  of 
this  tragic  event,  deems  the  above  explanation  "  entirely  natural." 
As  he  stood  in  the  valley,  and  looked  up  to  the  rocky  terraces 
which  hang  over  it,  and  which  he  found  by  measurement  to 
vary  from  twenty-five  to  forty  feet  almost  perpendicular  height, 
he  felt  "  more  than  ever  satisfied  "  with  the  solution  just  given. 
He  speaks  of  trees  as  still  growing  upon  the  margin  of  these 
precipices,  and  of  a  rocky  pavement  at  the  bottom  of  the  ledges, 
upon  which  the  traitor  would  be  crushed  and  mangled,  as  well 
as  killed,  in  his  fall.  The  Professor  suggests  that  Judas  may 
have  struck  upon  some  pointed  rock,  wliich  entered  his  body, 
and  caused  his  bowels  to  gush  out. 

Besides,  we  do  not  know  how  long  Judas  remained  suspended, 
nor  how  far  decomposition  was  advanced  when  he  fell. 

'  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  67.      '  Dlastrations  of  Scripture,  pp.  275, 276. 
80 


350  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Prof.  Gaussen,^  exemplifying  different  versions  of  the  same 

affair,  mentions    a   man  who,  having   determined   to    commit 

suicide,  placed  himself  upon  the  sill  of   a  lofty  window,  and 

aimed  a  pistol  at  his  head,  then  discharged  the  pistol,  and  leaped 

at    the   same  instant.     Now,  it  might  be  said,  with  sufficient 

accuracy,  that  the  man  took  his  life  by  shootmg,  or  by  throwing 

himself  from  a  height.     So,  in  the  case  in  question,  Matthew 

gives  one  aspect  of  the  affair,  and  Peter  another,  yet  there  is 

no  contradiction  between  them. 

Judges  appointed  hy  Moses.  Appointed  by  the  people. 

Ex.  xviii.  25;  Deut.  i.  15.  Deut.  i.  9-13. 

Jethro  suggested  the  appointment  to  Moses ;  and  the  latter, 
after  obtaining  the  consent  of  Jehovah,^  referred  the  matter  to 
the  people ;  and  the  men  whom  the  people  nominated  he  ad- 
mitted to  share  his  authority,  as  subordinate  judges.'  Thus, 
since  both  Moses  and  the  people  participated  in  the  choice,  it 
might  be  ascribed  indifferently  to  either.  The  omission  of 
mention  of  Jethro's  part  in  the  matter,  which  De  Wette  and 
Koster  style  a  "  contradiction,"  Stiihelin  says  is  no  contradiction, 
since  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Deuteronomist  simply  to  state 
t/ie  fact,  and  not  the  manner  of  the  appointment.  A  quite 
similar  case  is  that  of  the  spies  sent  by  the  Lord,  Num.  xiii. 
1,2;  by  Moses,  Num.  xxxii.  8 ;  by  the  people,  Deut.  i.  22 ; 
the  true  solution  being  that  the  people  suggested  the  matter  to 
Moses,  who  laid  it  before  the  Lord,  and  received  from  him  an 
injunction  to  comply  with  the  people's  request.  Yet  in  the 
condensed  statements  of  the  two  latter  passages  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  Divine  co-ojieration  in  the  sending. 

Upon  the  shallow  and  delusive  hypothesis  that  the  historian's 
omission  of  an  event  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  that  event,  are 
founded  many  of  the  alleged  "  contradictions "  of  the  P»ible. 
The  following  are  examples :  Levites'  participation  in  the  in- 
auguration of  Joash,  2  Chron.  xxiii.  1-20 ;  omitted,  2   Kings 

'  Theopncusty,  p.  117  (Kirk's  translation).  "  Sec  Ex.  xviii.  23,  24. 

"  Graves  on  the  Pentateuch,  i.  87. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  351 

xi.  4—19.     INIanasseh's   repentance,    2   Chron.    xxxiii.    11-17; 

omitted,  2  Kings  xxi.  17.     Moses'  family  sent  back  to  Midian, 

Ex.  xviii    2-6 ;  the  sending  back  omitted,  Ex.  iv.  20 ;  Moses' 

fast  at  his^rs^  ascent  of  Mount  Sinai,  Deut.  ix.  9, 18;  omitted, 

Ex.  xxiv.  1 8 ;  with  many  analogous  cases  elsewhere.     In  such 

instances,  the  omission  is  due  to  condensation  on  the  part  of 

the  writer,  or  to  his  selection  of  those  circumstances  only  wliich 

he  deemed  important. 

Kish  the  son  of  Abiel.  The  son  of  Ner. 

1  Sam.  ix.  1 ;  xiv.  50,  51.  1  Chron.  viii.  33;  ix.  39. 

There  were  probably  two  men  named  Ner  —  one  the  grand- 
father, the  other  the  brother  of  Kish.  Hence  the  genealogy 
wovdd  stand  thus : 

Ner. 
Abiel. 


Kish.  Ner. 

Saul.  Abner. 

Hervey  renders  1  Sam.  xiv.  50,  51  thus :  "  And  Kish  the 

father  of  Saul,  and  Ner  the  father  of  Abner,  were  the  sons  of 

Abiel."  ^ 

Kohath's  son,  Izhar.  Amminadab. 

Ex.  vi.  18.  1  Chron.  vi.  22. 

Two  names  of  the  same  person.  So  Rawlinson  and  other 
critics. 

It  may  be  added  here  that,  upon  the  hypothesis  (1)  that  the 
same  person  bears  several  names ;  or  (2)  that  several  persons 
bear  the  same  name ;  or  (3)  that  copyists  have  blundered  in 
respect  to  names  ;  or  (4)  that  the  terms  "  father  "  and  "  son," 
etc.,  are  used  in  a  loose  sense  for  "  progenitor,"  "  descendant," 
and  the  like,  we  are  able  to  explain  a  large  number  of  "  ap- 
parent contradictions "  like  the  following :  Laadan's  posterity, 
1  Chron.  vi.  20;  xxiii.  8  and  xxvi.  21,  22;  Laban's  father, 
Gen.  xxviii.  5  and  xxix.  5;  Machir's  wife,  1  Chron.  vii.  15 
and   IG;    Mahol's  sons,  1    Kuigs    iv.  31    and   1    Chron.  ii.  6; 

'  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  2853,  makes  Abiel  the  father  of  Ner. 


352  'DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Salah's   father,  Gen.  xi.  12  and  Luke  iii.  35,  36 ;    Samuel's 

first-born,  1  Sam.  viii.  2  and  1   Chron.  vi.   28 ;    Saul's   sons, 

1  Sam.  xiv.  49  and  1  Sam.  xxxi.  2  ;  1  Chron.  viii.  33  ;  Timnuh's 

relationship,  Gen.  xxxvi.  12  and  1  Chron.  i.  36,  51 ;  Zedekiah's 

relationship,  2  Kings  xxiv.  17;  1  Chron.  iii.  15  and  1  Chron. 

iii,  16;   2  Chron.  xxxvi.  10;    Zeehariah's  father,  Ezra  v.  1; 

vi.  14  and  Zeeh.  i.  1;  Zerubbabel's  father,  1  Chron.  iii.  19  and 

Ezra  iii.  2 ;  Neh.  xii.  1. 

As  to  the  differences,^  some  twenty-seven  in  number,  between 

the  two  lists  of  names,  Ezra  ii,  2—60  and  Neh.  vii.  7-62,  they 

are   due   either  to  copyists'  mistakes,  or  to  variations  in  our 

English  method  of  spelling  proper  names. 

Korah  swallowed  up  by  the  earth.  He  was  burned. 

Num.  xvi.  31-33;  xxvi.  10.  Num.  xvi.  85;  Ps.  cvi.  18. 

There  are  two  theories  respecting  Korah's  fate:  (1)  That 
he  was  burned,  with  the  "  two  hundred  and  fifty  men "  who 
offered  incense.  Dr.  Graves^  has  a  very  ingenious  argument 
in  defence  of  this  hypothesis,  which  is  also  supported  by 
Boothroyd,  Bush,  Geddes,  Hervey,^  Josephus,*  and  the  Samar- 
itan version.  But  Num.  xxvi.  10  seems  fatal  to  this  theory. 
(2)  That,  as  the  passage  just  named  implies,  Korah  was  en- 
gulfed, together  with  Dathan  and  Abiram.  Ewald,*  Keil, 
Kurtz,®  and  ICnobel  adopt  the  latter  view. 

The  following  would  seem  to  have  been  the  circumstances 
of  the  case.  Dathan  and  Abiram,  being  brothers  and  Reu- 
benites,  probably  had  tents  near  together,  and  with  their  tribe, 
on  the  south  side  of  the  encampment.'  Korah,  as  a  Kohatliite, 
would  pitch  his  tent  "on  the  side  of  the  tabernacle  southward."* 
This  would  bring  the  three  ringleaders  into  such  contiguity 
that  they  could  conveniently  take  counsel  together.^ 

'  Sec  more  than  a  liundrcd  similar  cases  collectccl  I)}'  Davidson,  Introd. 
to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108-112. 
«  On  Pentateucli,  i.  119,  120.  »  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1576. 

*  Antiq.  iv.  8,  4.  ''  History  of  Israel,  ii.  180. 

*  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  296.    '  Num.  ii.  10. 

*  Num.  iii.  29.  •  Blunt,  Coincidences.    See  Korah. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  353 

On  the  appointod  day  Korah  and  his  faction  assembled  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  Dathan  and 
Abiram  scornfully  refused  to  come  (vs.  12-14),  and  remained 
in  their  tents.  After  the  events  recorded  in  vs.  18-24,  Moses, 
leaving  the  tabernacle,  went  with  the  elders  of  Israel  to  the 
tents  of  Dathan  and  Abiram.  Doubtless  Korah,  who  was  the 
prime  mover  of  the  rebellion,  left  the  "  two  hundred  and  fifty 
men  "  burning  incense  at  the  tabernacle,  and  followed  Moses, 
with  the  purpose  of  strengthening  Dathan  and  Abiram  in  their 
contumacy.  Arrived  at  their  tents,  he  stood  with  them  and 
their  families  in  the  door  to  see  what  Moses  would  do.  At  the 
command  of  the  latter,  the  people  withdrew  from  about  the 
"  tabernacle  [tents  or  dwelling-place]  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
Abiram,"  who  were  instantly  swallowed  up  by  the  opening 
earth.  At  the  same  moment,  a  fire  sent  of  God  destroyed 
the  two  hundred  and  fifty  men  offering  incense  at  the  tabernacle. 
Probably  Korah  is  mentioned,  in  vs.  24-27,  with  the  other 
two,  because  he  was  so  closely  linked  with  them  in  conduct 
and  fate.  It  is  clear  that  Korah  was  not  in  his  own  tent, 
which  must  have  been  at  some  little  distance,  and  which  seems 
not  to  have,  been  destroyed.  Some  think  that  "  the  tabernacle 
of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram"  (vs.  24-27)  was  one  which 
these  men  had  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  tabernacle  proper. 

That  a  portion,  at  least,  of  Korah's  family  did  not  perish 
with  him  is  explicitly  asserted  in  Num.  xxvi.  11.  The  prophet 
Samuel  was  a  descendant  of  Korah,'  and  some  of  David's 
musicians  belonged  to  the  same  family.^  So  that  the  expres- 
sion, "  all  the  men  that  appertained  unto  Korah "  ^  (literally, 
"  all  unto  Korah  ")  denotes  simply  his  adherents  —  his  servants 
and  retainers,  with,  possibly,  the  adult  males  of  his  family. 

Lazarus  came  forth  from  the  tomb.        He  was  bound  hand  and  foot. 
John  xi.  44.  John  xi.  44. 

The  Jewish  sepulchres  were  caves  or  rooms  excavated  in 

» 1  Chron.  vi.  22-28.  '  1  Chron.  vi.  31, 83;  Ps.  xliv.-xlix,  titles. 

*  Num.  xvi.  32. 
80* 


354  DISCEEPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

the  rock.     The  dead  were  not  put  in  coffins,  but  into  niches 

cut  into  the  sides  of  these  rooms,  and  radiating  outward.     The 

corpse,  as  Meyer  tliinks,  was  not  so  swathed  with  bandages  as 

to  preclude  all  motion ;  and  the  wrappings  would  be  loosened 

by  the  movements  of  the  living  man.     At  Jesus'  word,  Lazarus 

raised  himself  from  his  recumbent  position  in  the  niche,  put 

forth  his  feet  over  the  edge,  then,  sliding  down,  stood  upright 

on  the  floor.'     When  he  thus  "  came  forth,"  Jesus  bade  them 

"  loose  him,  and  let  him  go." 

Man's  fear  and  dread  upon  all  beasts.  Not  upon  the  lion. 

Gen.  ix.  2.  Prov.  xxx.  30. 

The  second  passage, "  A  lion  which  is  strongest  among  beasts, 

and  turneth  not  away  for  any,"  may  mean,  " for  any  beast"  — 

another  way  of  designating  the  lion  as  the  "  king  of  beasts." 

If,  however,  it  implies,  "  for  any  man,"  the  exceptional  cases 

which  this  statement  covers  only  prove  the  general  rule  that 

the  presence  of  man  intimidates  all  the  lower  animals. 

Moses  somewhat  infirm.  His  physical  powers  well  preserved. 

And  Iip  said  unto  them,  1  am  a  hun-  And    Mosps    tras   an    luindrod    and 

drcd  and  twenty  years  old  tliis  day;  I  twenty   years   old   wlien   \u'.  died:  his 

can  no  more  po  out  and  come  in  :  also  eye  was  not  dim,  nor  his  natural  force 

the  Lf)ui)  hatli  said  unto  me.  Thou  shalt  abated.    Deut.  xxxiv.  7. 
not  go  over  this  Jordan.  Deut.  xxxi.  2. 

The  fact  that  Moses'  eyesight  and  physical  vigor  were  unim- 
paired does  not  preclude  his  knowing  that  he  had  already 
passed  far  beyond  the  ordinary  limit  of  human  life,  and  that 
his  mission  —  inasmuch  as  the  time  for  crossing  the  Jordan 
had  come,  and  he  himself  was  not  to  go  over — was  accomplished. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  he  admonished  the  Israelites  that  he 
could  no  longer  "  go  out  and  come  in  "  as  their  leader. 

Moses' father-in-law,  Jethro.  Reuel  or  Rafjuel.  Ilobab. 

Ex.  iii.  1 ;  iv.  18;  xviii.  5.        Ex.  ii.  18;  Num.  x.  20.        Judg.  iv.  11. 

Observe,  (1)  That  "  Reuel"  and  "  Raguel"  are  exactly  the 
same  in  the  Hebrew.  (2)  That  "  Jether,"  or  "Jethro,"  is  not 
a  proper  name,  but  simply  a  title  of  honor,  denoting  "  excel- 
lency,"  and   about   equivalent   to   the   Arabic  "Imam."     So 

*  So  Macknight,  I'axton,  and  others. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  355 

Aben  Ezra,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Keil,  Kimchi,  Knobel,  Kurtz, 
Winer,  and  others. 

The  following  seems  the  best  explanation  of  the  other 
difficulties  in  the  case.  Ilobab  was  the  son  of  Raguel,  and 
hence  the  brother-in-law  of  Moses.  He  appears  to  have  re- 
mained with  the  Israelites  when  his  father  Jethro  returned  to 
his  own  land,  and  to  have  settled  among  them.^  So  Josephus, 
Bertlieau,  and  Keil.  As  to  Num.  x.  29,  the  original  is  am- 
biguous, and  may  denote  either  that  Raguel  or  that  Hobab  was 
Moses'  father-in-law.  The  English  version  of  Judg.  iv.  11 
favors  the  latter  theory ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  "  chothen " 
means  properly  "  a  relative  by  marriage,"  ^  or,  as  Fuerst  says, 
"  one  who  makes  an  alliance."  So  that,  as  Ranke  maintains, 
the  term,  being  ambiguous,  proves  nothing. 

Some  think  that  Hobab  was  the  brother  of  Jethro  —  both 
being  sons  of  Raguel ;  others,  that  Hobab  and  Jethro  were 
different  names  of  the  same  man,  who  was  actually  the  father- 
in-law  of  Moses,  and  the  son  of  Raguel.  On  this  hypothesis, 
the  terms  "  father  "  and  "  daughter,"  Ex.  ii.  16-21,  are  equivalent 
to  "  grandfather  "  and  "  granddaughter." 

Moses  peerless  among  prophets.  Others  wrought  equal  miracles. 

Deut.  xxxiv.  10-12.  1  K.  xvii.  22;  2  K.  i.  10;  ii.  14;  iv.  34. 

The  first  passage  does  not  say  that  no  such  prophet  ever 
would  arise,  but  merely  that,  up  to  the  time  of  writing,  no 
prophet  equal  to  Moses  had  arisen.  Moreover,  in  certain 
aspects,  not  simply  as  a  miracle-worker,  but  as  a  lawgiver, 
Closes  has  never  been  equalled.  In  this  respect  he  has  no 
human  peer. 

Moses'  veil  worn  in  addressing  the  people.        JV"o<  worn  at  such  times. 
Ex.  xxxiv.  33-35.  2  Cor.  iii.  7, 13. 

The  best  commentators  agree  that  the  citation  from  Exodus 

'Compare  Ex.  xviii.  27;  Num.  x.  29-32;  Judg.  i.  16;  iv.  11;  1  Sam. 
XV.  6. 

*  See  Gen.  xix.  14 ;  2  Kings  viii.  27,  where  a  word  differing  only  in  vowel- 
poiuts  is  employed. 


356  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

should  be  rendered,  "  And  when  Moses  had  done  speaking  with 

them,  he  put  a  veil,"  etc. 

Ndboth's  sons  slain  loith  him.  Their  slaughter  not  inentioned. 

2  Kings  ix.  26.  1  Kings  xxi.  13. 

The  omission  in  the  condensed  narrative  of  1  Kings  cannot 

be  construed  into  a  denial.     The  murder  of   the  sons  is  not 

mentioned  in  this  place,  because,  as  Ewald  ^  says,  it  is  "  here 

understood  as  a  matter  of  course."     Jezebel,  who  was  not  wont 

to  do  things  by  halves,  would  see  to  it  that  Naboth's  sons  were 

not  left  alive  to  inherit  his  possessions  (which  would  not  then 

have  escheated  to  the  crown),  nor  to  revenge  their  father's 

cruel  death. 

Poor  not  found  in  Israel.  Poor  always  found. 

Dcut.  XV.  4.  Deut.  xv.  11. 

Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  Dathe,  and  others  give  the  sense  of 

the   first  passage  thus,  "  Thou  must  release  the  debt,  except 

when  no  poor  person  is  concerned  in  the  matter,  —  which  may 

happen,  for  the  Lord  shall  greatly  bless  thee,"  etc. 

Priests  styled  sons  of  Aaron.  Classed  as  Levites. 

Lev.  i.  5,  8,  11;  Num.  vi.  23.  Dcut.  x.  8,  9;  xviii.  1,  7. 

Certain  critics  have  affected  to  see  a  discrepancy,  in  that  the 

"  sharp  distinction  "  between  the  priests  and  Levites  in  the  first 

passages  is  not  kept  up  in-  the  second  series.     To  which  it  is 

sufficient  to  reply : 

1.  The  priests  were  not  only  "  sons  of  Aaron,"  but  were 
also  "  Levites." 

2.  The  term  "  sons  of  Aaron,"  applied  to  the  priests,  is  not 
found  in  the  last  part  of  Numbers  at  all,  but  only  in  the  first 
fourteen  chapters.  These  relate  to  the  second,  while  Deuter- 
onomy relates  to  the  fortieth,  year  after  the  exodus.  Now, 
during  the  intervening  thirty -eight  years,  a  change  of  phraseology 
may  have  obtained  currency. 

3.  In  Deuteronomy  Moses  is  speaking  in  general  terms. 
To  enter  into  minute  and  unimportant  details  would  bo  quite 

'  Ilibt.  of  Israel,  iv.  75,  note  2.    So  also  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  others. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  357 

foreign  to  his  purpose,  and  tend  to  defeat  it.     The  man  who 

addresses  a  large  and  mixed  audience  will,  if   he  knows  his 

business,  take  care  to  shun  irrelevant  details  and  distinctions.^ 

Purchaser  of  sejyidchre,  Jacob.  It  lous  Abraham. 

And  the  bonos  of  Josepli,  whicli  the  So  Jacob  went  down  into  Efrypt,  and 

childnni  of  Israel  broufrht  up  out   of  died,  he,  and  our  fathers.    And  were 

Kpvpt,  buried  they  in  Shecliem,  in  a  carried  over  into  Sychem,  and  laid  in 

jiarcel  of  pround  which  Jacob  bought  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for 

of  (he  sons  of  Uamor  the  father  of  a  sura  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor, 

Shechem  for  a  hundred  pieces  of  silver,  the  father  of  Sychem.    Acts  vii.  15, 16. 
Josh.  xxiv.  32. 

Alford  thinks  that  the  use  of  the  name  "  Abraham,"  in  the 
latter  passage,  is  due  to  "  haste  or  inadvertence  "  on  the  part 
of  Stephen.  Hackett,  following  Beza,  Kuinoel,  Schoettgen, 
and  others,  is  in  favor  of  omitting  the  word  "  Abraham,"  and 
rendering,  "  which  was  purchased." 

The  simplest  explanation  is  that  suggested  by  ]\Ir.  Garden.* 
It  is  known  that  Sychem  (Shechem)  was  the  place  where  God 
first  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  where 
the  patriarch  built  an  altar.'  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  a 
man  so  scrupulous  as  was  Abraham  in  respect  to  property 
would  purchase  the  field  where  he  built  his  altar.  In  the  one 
hundred  and  eighty-five  years  which  intervened,  the  Shechemites 
may  have  reoccupied  the  location,  and  Jacob  may  have  re- 
newed the  purchase  made  by  his  grandfather.  Of  this. con- 
secrated field  a  portion  may  have  been  set  apart  by  Jacob  as  a 
buj"ial-place. 

According  to  the  usage  of  New  Testament  Greek,  we  should 

read,  "  of  the  sons  of  Emmor  the  son  of  Sychem."     "We  are 

thus   carried   back  to  a    Shechem  and    Ilamor  antecedent  to 

Abraliam,  and  quite  different  from  those  of  whose  sons  Jacob 

made    the    purchase.  Gen.    xxxiii.   18-20.     The  way  is   thus 

cleared.      Abraham   made    the   original    purchase,  and   Jacob 

renewed  and  confirmed  the  transaction. 

Rebellious  Israelites  all  dead.  Spoken  of  as  living. 

Num.  xxvi.  G4,  65.  Dent.  i.  6,  9,  14;  v.  2,  5;  xi.  2,  7. 

That  the  congregation  which  remained  after  the  deatli  of  the 

'  See  Bible  Com.,  i.  797,  798.  »  Smith's  Bib.  Dirt.,  iv.  3114,  3115. 

»  Gen.  xii.  6,  7. 


358  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

rebels  might  still  be  considered  identical  with  that  which  came 
out  from  Egypt  is  clear,  from  the  following  considerations. 
Only  the  males  above  twenty  years  of  age  were  "  numbered," 
and  placed  under  the  ban.^  It  would  follow,  beyond  question, 
that  a  very  large  number  of  women  were  present,  who  remem- 
bered the  servitude  in  Egypt  and  the  events  in  the  wilderness. 
Besides,  the  Levites  were  exempted  from  the  ban,  as  well  as 
all  the  males  under  twenty  years  of  age?  Here,  then,  were 
three  classes  of  persons  who  survived,  and  who  formed  the 
large  majority  of  the  congregation  to  whom  JMoses  discoursed, 
as  recorded  in  Deuteronomy.  He  was,  therefore  (Colenso  to 
tlie  contrary,  notwithstanding),  perfectly  right  in  saying  to 
the  assembled  multitudes,  '■'■Yoiir  eyes  have  seen  all  the  great 
acts  of  the  Lord  which  he  did." 

Rulers  kneio  Christ.  They  knew  him  not. 

Matt.  xxi.  38.  John  xvi.  3;  Acts  iii.  17;  1  Cor.  ii.  8. 

A.  Fuller  deems  it  very  probable  that  there  were  some  of 
each  description  ;  and  that  the  former  jjassages  refer  to  one ; 
the  latter,  to  the  other. 

Alford  suggests  that  the  "  ignorance  "  mentioned  admitted  of 
all  degrees,  from  that  of  the  unlearned,  who  followed  their 
leaders  implicitly  in  rejecting  Jesus,  to  that  of  the  most  learned 
scribes,  who  rightly  understood  the  Messianic  predictions,  yet, 
from  moral  IiHihIiicss  or  perverted  expectations,  failed  to  recog- 
nize the  fulHlment  in  our  Lord. 

Samaritans  received  not  Jesus.  Treated  him  hospitably. 

Luke  ix.  52,  53.  John  iv.  39,  40. 

Baur  finds  a  "  discrejiancy "  here;  but  Bleek''  replies  that 

Luke  is  speaking  of  a  certain  Samaritan  vilknje,  wliile  Jolm 

refers  to  a  city  in  the  land  of  Samaria. 

Samuel  visited  Saul  no  more.  Saul  prophesied  before  him. 

1  Sam.  XV.  S5.  1  Sam.  xix.  24. 

De  Wette  * :  "It  is  said  that  Sanuiel  did  not  sec  Saul  again 

'  Compare  Num.  i.  2,  3,  45,  46.  -  Nuni    i.  ;>,  45,  19. 

^  Iiitrod.  to  New  Test.,  ii   220.  ■•  Introd.  to  OIiJ  'IVst.,  ii.  222. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  359 

till  the  day  of  his  death."     This  statement  conveys  a  wrong 

impression.     "  To  see  "  is  used  in  Hebrew  for  to  visit,  that  is, 

to  go  to  see^  as  in  2  Sam.  xiii.  5 ;  2  Kings  viii.  29  ;  2  Chron. 

xxii.  6.     Samuel  went  no  more  to  see  Saul ;   but  the  latter 

came  to  see  him.     Our  version  gives  the  true  sense. 

Saul's  attendants  heard  the  voice.  They  heard  it  not. 

Acts  ix.  7.  Acts  xxii.  9;  xxvi.l4. 

The  Greek  "  akouo,"  like  our  word  "  hear,"  has  two  distinct 
meanings,  to  perceive  sound,  and  to  understand.^  The  men 
who  were  with  Saul  of  Tarsus,  heard  the  sound,  but  did  not 
understand  what  was  said  to  him.  As  to  the  fact  that  one 
passage  represents  them  as  "  standing  "  ;  the  other,  as  having 
"  fallen  to  the  earth,"  the  word  rendered  "  stood  "  also  means 
to  be  fixed,  to  he  rooted  to  the  spot.  Henoe  the  sense  may  be, 
not  that  they  stood  erect,  but  that  they  were  rendered  motion- 
less, or  fixed  to  the  spot,  by  overpowering  fear.  Or,  perhaps, 
when  the  light  with  such  exceeding  brilliancy  burst  upon  them, 
they  all  "  fell  to  the  earth,"  but  afterward  rose  and  "  stood " 
upon  their  feet.^ 

Saul  chosen  king  by  lot.        Chosen  by  the  Lord.         Demanded  by  people. 
1  Sam.  X.  20,  21.        1  Sam.  ix.  17 ;  x.  24.  1  Sam.  viii.  19. 

Here  is  no  collision.     The  people  persisted  in  demanding  a 

king.     God  granted  their  request,  and  guided  the  lot  in  the 

choice  of  Saul  to  be  king  over  Israel.* 

Saul's  death,  —  one  manner.  A  different  manner. 

1  Sam.  xxxi.  3-5.  2  Sam.  i.  6-10. 

The  latter  statement  is  given  as  that  of  an  "  Amalekite," 
and  is  not  vouclicd  for  by  the  sacred  historian.  It  was  doubt- 
less colored  by  its  autlior  to  suit  the  supposed  occasion. 

Saul  inquired  of  the  Lord.  Did  not  thuf  inquire. 

1  Sam.  xxviii.  6.  1  Chron.  x.  14. 

'  Sec  Gcscnius,  Ilelircw  Lexicon,  p.  951,  Rem.  c,". 

"On  use  of  aKova.  -witli  difFercnt  cases,  sec  Winer's  Grainmar  of  X.  T. 
Idiom,  pp.  199,  200  (Thayer's  edition);  also,  Buttmann's  Grammar,  pp 
165,  166. 

^  Compaic  Ilackett,  Commentary  on  Acts  ix.  7. 

*  Ewald's  History  of  Israel,  iii.  25. 


360  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

It  is  sufficient  to  notice  that  two  different  Hebrew  words  of 
diverse  meaning  are  employed  here.  Or,  it  may  be  correctly 
remarked  that  Saul's  attempts  at  inquiry  were  of  so  unworthy 
a  nature  that  it  would  be  an  abuse  of  language  to  speak  of  him 
as  really  "  inquiring  of  Jehovah."  As  to  the  aj^parent  conflict 
between  1  Sam.  xiv.  18,  37  and  1  Chron.  xiii.  3,  relative  to 
asking  counsel  at  the  ark  of  God,  the  latter  passage,  which 
denies  this  custom  in  the  days  of  Saul,  doubtless  refers  to  the 
later  years  of  that  monarch,  after  he  had  slain  the  priests  of 
the  Lord,  and  sunk  in  the  depths  of  sin  and  shame. 

Saul's  family  died  with  him.  Some  of  the  family  survived. 

1  Chron.  x.  6.  2  Sam.  ii.  8. 

The  expression  "  all  his  house,"  in  the  first  text,  is  explained 
by  "  all  his  men,"  1  Sam.  xxxi.  6.  KeU :  "•  All  those  who  were 
about  the  king,  i.e.  the  whole  of  the  king's  attendants  who  had 
followed  him  to  the  war."  Similarly  Rawlinson.  Fuerst  gives 
people,  servants  among  the  significations  of  the  Hebrew  word 
"  bayith,"  house,  used  in  the  first  text. 

Saul  unacquainted  ivith  David.  Kneio  him.  very  well. 

1  Sam.  xvii.  55-58.  1  Sam!  xvi.  21-23. 

The  point  of  the  difficulty  is.  How  could  Saul  and  Abner 
too  be  so  ignorant  in  respect  to  one  who  hud  been  armor-bearer 
and  musician  to  Saul  ?  Various  solutions  of  this  difficulty  are 
given. 

Some  critics,  Ilorsley,  Townsend,  Gray,  and  others,  think 
that  these  passages  are  not  chronologically  arranged,  and  that 
verses  14-23  of  chapter  xvi.  belong  between  verses  9  and  10  of 
chapter  xviii.  In  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  Septuagint,  chapters 
xvii.  12-31  and  5o— xviii.  o  —  twenty-nine  verses  in  all  —  are 
omitted.^  Houbigant,  Kennicott,*  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  Dathe, 
and  Berthcau,  on  tliis  account,  deem  these  verses  "  inter- 
polations."    But  such    critics  as    DeWette,  Thenius,  Ewald,'' 

'  Davidson  on  Hebrew  Text,  pp.  57,  58.  *  Dissertations,  11.  418-430. 

^  History  of  Israel,  iii.,  71,  note. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  361 

Bleek,  Stahelin,  Keil,  and  Davidson'  reject  this  theory,  and 
explain  the  passages  in  another  manner. 

As  to  Abner's  ignorance  of  David,  it  is  entirely  conceivable 
that  the  former,  as  commander  of  Saul's  army,  and  constantly 
busied  with  military  affairs,  may  have  known  very  little  of 
David  (who  was  probably  with  Saul  only  upon  infrequent 
occasions),^  and  nothing  whatever  as  to  his  family  connections. 

Saul's  ignorance  of  the  young  hero  may  be  accounted  for 
upon  some  one  or  more  of  the  following  considerations : 

1.  Possible  anticipation  of  events,  or  transposition  of  pas- 
sages. Oriental  historians  sometimes  pursue  the  leading  idea  of 
the  narrative  to  its  result,  and  then  return  to  fill  up  the  omitted 
details.'     Hence,  contemporaneous  events  appear  consecutive. 

2.  Lapse  of  time,  and  consequent  change  in  David's  personal 
aspect.  We  do  not  know  how  much  time  intervened ;  and  the 
change  in  Eastern  youths  with  respect  to  physical  development 
is  very  marked  and  sudden.* 

3.  Bustle  of  war  and  court  life,  with  the  multiplicity  of 
Saul's  servants  and  attendants.     So  Kalkar,  Saurin,  and  others. 

4.  Diseased  mental  state  of  Saul.  Persons  suffering  from 
mania  or  insanity  often  forget  their  nearest  friends.  So  Abar- 
banel  and  Bertholdt. 

5.  Ignorance  of  Saul,  not  as  to  David  himself,  but  as  to  his 
family,''  of   which,  as    we    have   seen,   Abner   might  well    be 

1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  530. 

^  Sec  p.  ?j?A  infra,  "  David's  detention." 

*  Sec  Bible  Commentary  on  1  Sam.  xvi.  21. 

^  Thomson  (Land  and  Book,  ii.  366,  American  edition),  speakinjr  of  the 
sadden  chanirc  of  boys  in  such  cases,  says :  "  They  not  only  sprin'.r  into 
fuil-irrown  manhood  as  if  by  ma^ric,  but  all  their  former  beauty  ilisappears ; 
their  complexion  becomes  dark;  their  features  hard  and  anirular,  anil  the 
whole  expression  of  countenance  stern  and  even  disairrccable.  I  have 
often  been  accosted  by  such  persons,  formerly  intimate  acquaintances, 
but  wlio  had  suddenly  frrown  entirely  out  of  my  knowledge,  nor  could  1 
without  difficulty  rccofriiizc  them."  Mr.  Thom.son  thinks  that  David,  hav- 
ing returned  to  shci)her(l  life,  had  probably  undcr-ronc  a  chau;i^o  like  th  t 
above  described,  hence  was  not  recognized  by  Saul. 

*  So  Kurtz  in  Herzoi^'s  Real-Encyklopadic,  iii.  300. 

31 


362  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

ignorant.      Kimchi  thinks  that   Saul  wished  to  know  simply 

whether  David's  valor  was  hereditary,  that,  if  so,  his  family 

might  be  "  made  free  in  Israel."  ^ 

As  to  the  fact  that  David  is  represented  as  "  a  mighty,  valiant 

man,  and  a  man  of   war"  (xvi.  18),  but  as  a  "stripling,"  a 

youth  unaccustomed  to  arms  (xvii.  39,  42,  56),  it  may  be  said 

that   the  first  epithets  may  have  been  applied  to    David   not 

because  lie  had  already  fought  bravely  in  war,  but  on  account 

of  the  courage  and  strength  displayed  by  him  in  killing  the 

lion  and  the  bear  (xvii.  34-36),  and  which  pointed  him  out  as 

a  future  hero.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Hebrew  term  rendered 

"  slripling "  denotes,  says  Gesenius,  "  a  youth,  young  man  of 

marriageable  age."     Fuerst,  "  properly,  a  strong  one." 

Satan  under  restraint.  Suffered  to  roam  at  liberty. 

2  Pet.  ii.  4;  Jude  vi.  Job  i.  6,  7;  1  Pet.  v.  8;  Rev.  xii.  12. 

While  the  leader  and  some  others  of  the  fallen  spirits  are 

permitted  to  roam  the  earth,  and  to  tempt  mankind,  the  majority 

of  these  beings  may  be  confined  within  the  limits  of  their  dark 

abode.     Even  those  which  are  let  loose  have  only  a  restricted 

liberty.     Beyond  certain  environing  lines  they  are  not  suffered 

to  go ;  they  are  under  strict  surveillance  —  as  we  might  express 

it  by  a  borrowed  figure,  "  bound  over,"  or  so  secured  that  they 

cannot  escape  the  judgment  of  the  last  day.     Davidson  ^  thinks 

that  "  chains  of  darkness  "  signify  metaphorically  misery,  ohdu- 

rateness   in  wickedness,  and    despair.     A  being  may  possess 

physical  liberty,  yet  wear,  at  the  same  time,  the  heaviest  mental 

and  spiritual  chains. 

Solomon  reduced  Jlehreios  to  bondage.  Did  not  enslave  them. 

1  Kinj;s  V.  13, 15;  xii.  4.  1  Kings  ix.  22. 

None  of  the  Israelites  were  reduced  to  actual  slavery. 
Nevertheless,  Solomon's  taxes  and  levies  became  very  oppres- 
sive to  the  people  in  general.  Enforced  service,  even  though 
if  be  paid  service,  is  commonly  deemed  distasteful  and  burden- 
some. 

'  See  chap.  xvii.  25.  » Introd.  to  New  Test.,  iii.  438. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  363 

Zedekiah  carried  to  Babylon.  Did  not  see  Babylon. 

Jcr.  xxxiv.  3.  2  Kings  xxv.  7;  Ezck.  xii.  13. 

The  first  passage  does  not  assert  that  Zedekiah  should  actu- 
ally see  Babylon,  but  that  he  should  see  its  king,  and  go 
thither.  The  facts  were  these :  The  king  of  Babylon  ordered 
the  captive  Zedekiah  to  be  brought  before  him  at  his  head- 
quarters at  Riblah.  There,  at  the  king's  command,  Zedekiah's 
eyes  were  put.  out,  and  he  was  bound  with  brazen  fetters  and 
carried  to  Babylon.  Thus  the  above  predictions  were  strictly 
fulfilled.  Zedekiah  saw  the  king  of  Babylon,  but  not  the  city 
itself,  although  he  was  carried  thither  and  died  there. 

There  are  many  other  discrepancies  of  a  transparent  or 
trivial  character,  like  the  following  cases :  Israel's  sight.  Gen. 
xlviii.  8  and  10;  Egyptians  visible,  Ex.  xiv.  13  and  30;  re- 
ceivers of  Moses'  book,  Deut.  xxxi.  9  and  25,  26 ;  reception 
of  promises,  Heb.  xi.  13,  39,  and  33  ;  remover  of  stone,  Gen. 
xxix.  2  and  4;  speaker  in  a  given  case.  Matt.  xxi.  41  and 
Mark  xii.  9;  Luke  xx.  16;  survivors  of  Sennacherib's  army, 
2  Kings  xix.  35.  Now  we  cannot  suppose  that  cases  like  these 
—  founded  as  they  are  upon  free  and  popular  modes  of  thought 
and  speech,  common  to  all  ages  and  countries  —  will  furnish 
difficulty  to  persons  possessed  of  candor  and  common  sense  — 
two  qualities  which  the  Bible  invariably  demands  and  pre- 
supposes in  its  readers. 

II.    COXCEBNIXG  PLACES. 

Aaron  died  upon  Mount  Hor.  Died  at  Mosera. 

Num.  XX.  27,  28;  xxxiii.  38.  Deut.  x.  6. 

Mosera  or  Moseroth  was  a  station  near  to  Mount  Ilor,  and 
within  sight  of  it.  During  the  encampment  of  the  Israelites  at 
Mosera  Aaron  ascended  the  mountain  and  died.  Prof.  J.  L. 
Porter  ^  thinks  Mosera  was  the  general  name  of  the  district  in 
which  Mount  Ilor  is  situated. 

'  Kitto,  iii.  221. 


364  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Abraham's  destination  Canaan.  Unknoion  to  him. 

Gen.  xii.  5.  Heb.  xi.  8. 

At  first,  the  name  of  the  country  was  not  revealed  to  him.' 

It  is  designated  simply  as  a  "land  that  I  will  show  thee"  (Gen. 

xii.  1).     Even  if  the  name  "  Canaan"  had  been  mentioned  to 

Abraham  at  the  outset,  it  might  still  be  true  that  he  went  forth, 

"  not  knowing  whither  he  went."     For,  in  those  days  of  slow 

transit,  imperfect  intercommunication,  and  meagre  geographical. 

knowledge,  the  mere  name  of  a  country  several  hundred  miles 

distant  would  convey  almost  7io  idea  of  the  country  itself.  In  our 

own  time,  even,  of  how  many  an  emigrant  on  his  way  to  America 

it  might  well  be  said,  "  He  knows  not  whither  he  is  going." 

Ahab  slain  at  Jezreel.  Slain  at  Bamoth-gilead. 

1  Kings  xxi.  1,  19.  1  Kings  xxii.  37,  38. 

Gerlach,  Keil,  Rawlinson,  and  others  think  that  the  pre- 
diction was  fulfilled,  in  part  upon  Ahab,  whose  blood  was 
actually  licked  by  the  dogs,  and  m  part  upon  his  wicked 
son  Jehoram,  whose  dead  body  was  cast  into  the  very  plat 
of  ground  which  had  been  Naboth's.^  Biihr  maintains  that  the 
word  "place,"  in  the  passage  at  the  right,  is  a  general  term, 
equivalent  to  "  outside  the  city " ;  both  Naboth  and  Ahab 
meeting  their  death  in  a  certain  "  place,"  that  is,  outside  the 
walls  of  a  city. 

Ahaz  slept  with  his  fathers.  Not  in  the  royal  (sepulchres. 

2  Kings  xvi.  20.  2  Chron.  xxviii.  27. 

If  Ahaz  was  buried  in  close  proximity  to,  though  not  in,  the 

royal  sepulchres,  the  conditions  of  the  case  would  be  fully  met. 

Ahaziah  died  at  Megiddo.  Apparently  elsewhere. 

But  whon  Ahaziali  tlio  kinp  of  .Tudah        And   lie   soupht   Ahaziah:   and  tlioy 
paw    thix,   lie   fled    by   tlio    way  of  tlie    cauglit  him  (for  lip  was  hid  in  Samaria), 


pardcn-huuso.  Aiid.Ifhu  followod  after    and  brought  liiin  to  Joliu:    and  wlicn 
liim,  and   said,  .Stnito  liim  also  i 

lariot.     Aiul  fhri/  dirt  .so  at  thn  going 
up  to  (iiir,  which  in  by  Ibloain.     And 


im,  and   said,  .Stnito  him  also  in  the    tlipy  had  slain   him,  thoy  buried  him. 
chariot.    Antl  /licii  ilifl  hd  at  thn  going    2  Chron.  xxii.  9. 


he  llf'd  to  SIcgiddo,  and  died   there. 
2  King^  ix  27. 

'  Gen.  xi.  ol  merely  sliows  that  Abraham's  destination  was  known  to 
Moses  writing  at  a  later  date.  "  Went  forth  to  go,"  points  to  the  result  in 
the  case. 

•^  2  Kings  ix.  25,  26. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  365 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  second  passage  is  very  much  con- 
densed, and  is  supplementary  to  the  other.  The  closing  words, 
"and  when  they  had  slain  him,  they  buried  him,"  indirectly 
attribute  the  burial  to  Jehu's  emissaries,  inasmuch  as  they 
ordered,  or  at  all  events  allowed,  the  burial,  when  they  might 
have  prevented  it.^ 

Probably  Ahaziah  really  escaped  to  Samaria,  and  concealed 
himself  for  a  time,  but  was  then  ferreted  out  and  captured  by 
Jehu's  soldiers,  who  brought  him  to  their  master.  Attempting 
again  to  escape,  he  received  a  fatal  wound  at  the  pass  of  Gur 
near  Ibleam,  whence  he  fled  to  Megiddo,  where  he  breathed  his 
last.     So  Keil  and  Hackett.^ 

The  passage  at  the  left  is  elliptical,  if  not  defective.     Leaving 

out  the  words   supplied  by  our  translators,  Jehu's  injunction 

was,  "  Smite  him  also  in  the  chariot  at  the  going  up  to  Gur, 

which  is  by  Ibleam."  ?     The  passage  then  contains  no  mention 

of  the  fulfilment  of  the  command,  which  must   therefore   be 

supplied  from  the  parallel  passage. 

Amalekites  were  in  the  valley.  They  were  on  the  hill. 

Num.  xiv.  25.  Num.  xiv.  45 

The  Hebrew  word  here  rendered  "  valley  "  denotes  "  a  broad 
sweep  between  hills."*  In  the  present  instance  the  valley 
itself  is  in  one  sense  styled  a  "  hill,"  because  it  lay  on  the  top 
of  the  mountain-plateau  or  table-land  where  the  conflict  oc- 
curred. The  Amalekites  and  Canaanites  "  came  down  "  from 
the  heights  above  to  this  plateau. 

Ammonites'  land  not  forfeited.  Some  of  it  given  to  Israelites. 

Deut.  ii.  19.  Josh.  xiii.  25. 

The  land  which  the   Ammonites  occupied   in  the   days  of 

Moses  the  Israelites  were  not  permitted  to  appropriate.     But 

the  Amoritcs  had,  at  some  time  in  the  past,  overpowered  the 

Ammonites,  and  wrested  from  them  a  large  portion  of  their 

'  See  2  Kings  ix.  26. 

"  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  48. 

*  Compare  Bible  Commentary  on  2  Kings  ix.  27. 

*  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  under  "eraek,"  p^as ,  p.  476. 

81* 


366  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

territory.  This  tract  —  Sihon  being  its  king  and  Heshbon  its 
capital  —  was  reconquered,  and  (ai:)parently  with  the  tacit  con- 
sent of  the  Ammonites)  taken  possession  of  by  the  Israelites.^ 
It  is  this  territory  which  is  referred  to  in  the  passage  from 
Joshua. 

Ark  placed  in  the  midst  of  camp.  In  the  van  of  the  army. 

Num.  ii.  17;  X.  21.  Num.  x.  33. 

Rashi,  Kimchi,  and  the  Talmudists  maintain  that  there  were 

two  arks  —  one  made   by  INIoses,  carried    in  the  van  of   the 

army,  and  afterwards  captured  by  the  Philistines ;  the  other 

made  by  Bezaleel,  wdiich  contained  the  tables  of  the  law,  and 

remained  in  the  midst  of  the  encampment.^     Abarbanel,  Nach- 

manides,  and  others  hold  that  the  one  ark  was  generally  placed 

in  the  midst  of  the  encampment,  but  in  exceptional  cases,  as 

during  the  three   days'  journey,  and  in   the  crossing   of   the 

Jordan,^  was  borne  in  advance  of  the  host.     Keil  and  Kurtz 

say  that  the  ark,  as  distinguished  from  the  sanctuary,  always 

went  foremost.     Bishop  Patrick  thinks  that  the  words  "  went 

before  them  "  do  not  imply  local  precedence,  but  leadership ; 

the  expression  being  often  applied  to  a  general,  who,  of  course, 

in  leading  his  forces  to  battle,  does  not  necessarily  go  before 

them,  in  the  local  sense. 

Balaam  returned  to  his  place.  lie  went  instead  to  Midian. 

Num.  xxiv.  25.  Num.  xxxi.  8. 

He  set  out  upon  his  journey  home,  visiting  IMidian  on  the 

way.     According   to   Hengstenberg,*  Kurtz,*  and  Winer,  the 

Hebrew  word  rendered  "  returned "  means  to  turn  away,  or 

to  turn  hack  ;  and  tlie  attainment  of  the  object  is  not  included 

in  the  word    itself.     Hence  we   may  read,  with  Keil,  "  went 

and  turned  towards  his  place." 

>  Ewalfl,  History  of  Israel,  ii.  204,  205,295. 

"  Conciliator,  i.  216, 247 ;  Pridcaux,  Coimections,  i.  810,  811  (Charlestown, 
Mass.  1815). 
=■.10811.  iii.  8-6. 

*  History  of  Balaam  and  his  prophecies,  pp.  508, 509. 
»  History  of  0.  C,  iii.  458. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  367 

Beasts  slain  at  door  of  tabernacle.  Slain  elsewhere. 

Lev.  xvii.  3,  4.  Deut.  xii.  15,  16. 

The   stringent  law  of    Leviticus,  designed   to   prevent  the 
private  and  idolatrous  rites  to  wliich  the  people  were  inchned 
is,  now  that  they  are  about  to  enter  Canaan,  relaxed,  so  far  as 
animals  intended  simply  for  food  are  concerned. 
Bethsaida  in  one  locality  In  a  different  situation. 

Mark  vi.  32,  45,  53.  Luke  ix.  10-17. 

Reland  and  others  have  shown  that  there  were  two  cities  of 
this  name,  one  on  the  eastern,  the  other  on  the  western,  shore 
of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.^ 
Benjamin  bom  in  Canaan.  Bom  in  Padan-aram. 

Gen.  XXXV.  16-19.  Gen.  xxxv.  24-26. 

Aben  Ezra  says  that  the  latter  passage  speaks  summarily. 

The  author,  writing  in  a  condensed  manner,  took  it  for  granted 

that  his  readers,  acquainted  with  what  he  had  written  a  few 

verses  previously,  would  make  the  necessary  exception  here. 

Canaan  in  a  state  of  famine.  Fruits  not  cut  off. 

Gen.  xli.  56,  57;  xlii.  1-5.  Gen.  xliu.  11, 15. 

To  this  discrepancy  adduced  by  Von  Bohlen,  Kurtz  ^  replies, 

"  Only  the  cereal  products  of  the  land  had  suffered Fertility 

in  fruit-trees  does  not  depend  on  the  same  circumstances  as 
that  of  grain  crops." 

Christ  ascended  at  Bethany.  At  the  mount  called  Olivet. 

Luke  xxiv.  50,  51.  Acts  i.  9, 12. 

Bethany  lay  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Mount  Olivet.     Persons 

returning  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  would  pass  over  the  top 

of  Olivet,   and  hence   might   be   said  to   "  return   from    this 

mount." 

Christ's  first  re-appearance  in  Galilee.  At  Jerusalem. 

Matt,  xxviii.  16,  17.  Luke  xxiv.  33,  36;  John  xx.  19. 

Matthew  does  not  deny,  but  simply  passes  over,  earlier  ap- 
pearances of  our  Lord,  and  dwells  upon  that   in  Galilee  as 

*  See  articles  in  Smith  and  Kitto;  also,  Thomson's  Land  and  Book,  ii. 
9,  29-32 ;  and  Ebrard,  Gospel  History,  p.  335,  336. 
»  History  of  Old  Covenant,  i.  876,  377. 


368  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

being  one  of  great  importance.     Then,  probably,  it  was  that 

the  risen  Saviour  was  "  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren 

at  once."  *     This  manifestation  seems  to  have  been  our  Lord's 

last  great  act  in  Galilee,  his  final  interview  with  his  disciples  in 

that  region. 

Christ's  first  sermon  on  a  mountain.  In  the  plain. 

Matt.  V.  1,  2.  Luke  vi.  17,  20. 

Mr.  Greswell  thinks  that  these  passages  refer  to  entirely  dif- 
ferent occasions.  Stanley^  says  that  the  words  in  Luke  should 
be  rendered  "  a  level  place,"  ^  and  not  "  the  plain."  He  de- 
scribes a  hill  with  flattened  top,  *•'  suitable  for  the  collection  of 
a  multitude,"  and  having  also  two  peaks  (now  called  •'  the 
Horns  of  Hattin  "),  from  one  of  which  Christ  "  came  down," 
and  stood  "  upon  the  level  place  "  to  address  the  people. 

Cities  in  the  territory  of  Dan.  Within  that  of  Ephraim. 

Josb.  xxi.  23,  24.  1  Chron.  vi.  69. 

In  the  opinion  of  Keil  and  Rawlinson,  the  Hebrew  text  of 

1  Chron.  vi.  is  defective,  some  words  having  (h-opped  out  between 

verses  C8  and  G9,  through  an  oversight  of  copyists. 

Cities  pertained  to  Judah.  Pertained  to  Dan. 

Josb.  XV.  33;  1  Cbron.  ii.  53.        Josb.  xix.  40,  41;  Judg.  xviii.  2,  8. 

The  explanation  is,  that  the  inheritance  of  Dan  proving  inad- 
equate,* Judah  gave  up  some  of  its  northern  towns,  and  Ephraim 
some  of  its  southern  towns,  to  the  Danites,  thus  furnishing  them 
with  a  territory  proportionate  to  their  number.  Zorah  and 
Eshtaol  were  among  the  towns  relinquished  by  Judah,  hence  are 
spoken  of  sometimes  as  belonging  to  the  latter  tribe,  and  some- 
times to  Dan.*  The  statement  in  Judges  xviii.  1,  that  "  the  in- 
heritance of  the  Danites  had  not  fallen  unto  them  among  the 
tribes  of  Israel,"  Cassel  regards  simply  as  a  causeless  conii)laint 
by  the  Danites,  who  had  not  sufficient  enterprise  to  conquer  the 
territory  which  had  been  assigned  to  them  by  lot.     Bertheau, 

'  1  Cor.  XV.  6.  '  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  360. 

'  Greek  ivl  76itov  irtZivov.  *  Josb.  xix.  47. 

'  Compare  Keil  on  Josh.  xix.  40-48. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  3G9 

Kei],  Kimchi,  and  Rashi  take  the  words  as  meaning,  "  no  ade- 
quale  inheritance." 

The  assignment  of  the  same  cities  to  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  2G-32, 
42),  and  to  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  2-7),  is  due  to  the  simple  fact 
that  the  inheritance  of  Simeon  fell  xoitldn  that  of  Judah.^  Dif- 
ferences in  the  names  are  due  to  copyists. 

Country  of  the  Gergesenes.  Country  of  the  Gadarenes. 

Matt.  viii.  28.  Marie  v.  1. 

A  general  geographical  designation  applying  to  the  territory 
in  which  Gadara  and  Gergesa  were  situated.^ 

David  took  Metheg-ammah.  Captured  Gath. 

2  Sam.  viii.  1.  1  Chron.  xviii.  1. 

Fuerst  and  Gesenius  interpret  the  first  passage  thus :  '*  David 
took  the  bridle  of  the  metropolis,"  that  is,  he  subdued  Gath 
the  metropolis  of  the  Philistines.  Havernick :  ^  "  David  took  the 
rein  of  dominion  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Philistines."  Ewald  :  * 
"  Tore  from  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  the  bridle  of  the  arm  ; 
that  is,  he  tore  from  them  the  supremacy  by  wliich  they  curbed 
Israel,  as  a  rider  curbs  his  horse  by  the  bridle,  which  the  strength 
of  his  arm  controls." 

Disciples  went  into  Galilee.  Tarried  in  Jerusalem. 

Matt,  xxviii.  10,  16.  Luke  xxiv.  49. 

The  command  "  tarry  ye  in  Jerusafcm,"  etc.,  means  simply, 
"  Make  Jerusalem  your  head-quarters.  Do  not  leave  it  to  begin 
your  work,  until  ye  be  endued,"  etc.  Tliis  injimction  would  not 
preclude  a  brief  excursion  to  Galilee.  Besides,  the  command 
may  not  have  been  given  until  after  the  visit  to  Galilee.  Alford 
adopts  the  latter  hypothesis. 

Ephraim's  land  east  of  Jordan.  West  of  Jordan. 

2  Sam.  xviii.  6.  Josh.  xvii.  15-18. 

Blunt,  Ewald,"  Hervey,  and  Stanley"  think  that  "  the  wood 

'  Josh.  xix.  1,  9. 

*  See  Smith's  15ihlc  Diet.,  Art.  "Gadara."  Some  of  the  best  critics, 
Tischcndorf,  Trejrellcs,  etc.,  give  a  diflFcreut  reading  iu  the  first  passage, 
agreeing  witlythat  of  the  second. 

» Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  p.  208.  ■•  Vol.  iii.  1-18. 

'  Vol.  ii.  821,  822;  iii.  186,  note.  •>  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  822,823. 


370  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

of  Ephraim"  (2  Sam.  xviii.  6),  was  not  within  the  territory  of 

that  tribe,  but  was  on  the  eastern  side  of  Jordan.     This  forest 

probably  derived  its  name  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Ephraim- 

ites  long  before  in  that  vicinity.^ 

Forces  stationed  in  certain  places.  In  different  places. 

2  Kings  xi.  5-7.  2  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  5. 

From  the  fact  that  the  young  king  spent  six  years  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  it  is  designated  as  "the  king's  house." ^  Keil 
mamtains  that  the  forces  under  the  command  of  the  centurions 
who  occupied  the  various  posts  in  the  temple  consisted  partly 
of  Levitic  tem^ile-guards.  and  partly  of  royal  body-guards.  In 
Kings  the  latter  class,  in  Chronicles  the  former  class,  come  prom- 
inently into  view.  The  posts  or  stations  of  the  forces  agree 
well.  One  division  was  to  be  "  at  the  gate  of  Sur  "  (Kings), "  at 
the  gate  of  the  foundation  "  (Chronicles)  ;  a  second  was  to  be 
"  keepers  of  the  watch  of  the  king's  house  "  (Kings),  "  at  the 
king's  house "  (Chronicles)  ;  a  third  was  to  be  "  at  the  gate 
behind  the  guard"  (Kings),  "porters  of  the  doors,"  better 
"watchers  of  the  thresholds"  (Chronicles).  Here  is  no  dis- 
crepancy. 

Goliath's  armor  put  in  David's  tent.  Carried  to  Nob. 

1  Sam.  xvii.  54.  1  Sam.  xxi.  9. 

The  first  passage  does  not  assert  that  David  kept  it  in  his 

tent.     During  the  interval,  he  or  some  one  carried  the  sword 

to  Nob. 

Goliath's  head  carried  to  Jerusalem.  That  city  held  by  Jebusites. 

1  Sam.  xvii.  54.  2  Sara.  v.  6,  9. 

To  the  "  discrepancy  "  which  De  Wette "  sees  here,  Ewald  * 

answers,  that  clearly  David  did  not  carry  the  head  to  Jerusalem 

till  afterwards,  when  he  was  king.     Then,  as  we  learn  from  the 

passage  at  the  riglit,  he  captured  that  city. 

Gospel  to  be  preached  everywhere.  Not  to  be  preached  in  Asia. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Acts  xvi.  6. 

For  wise  reasons,  and  for  a  brief  time  onhj,  Paul  was  not 

'  Sec  .Ju(]g.  xii.  1-6.  «  See  2  Kings  xl.  .V5. 

'*  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  216.  ♦  History  of  Israel,  iil.  72. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  371 

allowed  to  preach  in  Asia.     When  the  fitting  time  arrived,  the 
prohibition  was  removed. 

Halting-places  of  Israelites,  —  names.  Stated  differently. 

Num.  xxxiii.  44-49.  Nam.  xxi.  10-20. 

We  have  previously  seen  ^  that  the  Israelites,  during  a  large 
portion  of  the  thirty-eight  years  were  comparatively  stationary, 
or  as  nearly  so  as  tribes  of  nomadic  habits  could  well  be  ;  and 
that  they  doubtless  were  spread  over  a  large  extent  of  territory, 
in  quest  of  water  and  pasturage  for  their  flocks  and  herds. 
Prof.  Porter^  has  more  than  once  passed  through  a  moving 
tribe  of  Arabs,  spreading  over  a  tract  twenty  miles  in  diameter. 
We  doubt  not  that  the  Israelites  covered  a  vastly  larger  terri- 
tory ;  and  that  when  they  moved,  it  was,  as  Prof.  Palmer  ^  says, 
"  in  Bedawin  order,  subdivided  into  numerous  encampments, 
and  spread  over  an  immense  surface  of  country." 

Many  critics  agree  with  Kurtz  *  that  the  stations  mentioned 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36  are  simply  the  places  successively  occu- 
pied as  the  head-quarters  of  Moses  and  the  tabernacle.  "  It  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  scattered  parties  of  Israelites 
should  be  visited  by  Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  to  prevent  their 
connection  with  one  another,  and  more  especially  their  connection 
with  Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  being  entnely  dissolved  during  so 
long  a  period  as  thirty-seven  years.  Hence  the  stations  named 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36  must  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  circuit, 
which  was  made  through  the  desert  by  Moses  and  the  taber- 
nacle." Prof.  J.  L.  Porter,*  Dieterici,®  Davidson,^  and  Messrs. 
Espin*  and  Cook  take  a  similar  view.  Dr.  Robinson"  also 
maintains  that  "  the  stations  as  enumerated  refer  to  the  head- 
quarters of  Moses  and  the  elders,  with  a  portion  of  the  people 
who  kept  near  them  ;  while  other  portions  preceded  or  followed 

1  See  p.  3-12  infra.  «  Kitto's  Cyclopedia,  ili.  1075. 

^  Desert  of  Exodus,  p.  433.  *  History  of  Old  Covenant,  ili.  801. 

'  Kitto,  iii.  1079.  o  See  in  Kurtz,  iii.  90. 

'  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  326, 327.    »  Bil)Ie  Commentary,  i.  654,  720, 
*  Bib.  Researches,  i.  106  (1st  edition). 


372  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

them  at  various  distances  as  the  convenience  of  water  and  pas- 
turage might  dictate."  Prof.  Porter  thinks  that  the  number  of 
''  marshalled  men  "  who  constantly  attended  Moses  was  not  more 
than  one  tenth  of  the  whole. 

The  differences  between  the  lists  of  stations  above  arose 
from  the  fact  that  the  same  station  had  several  names,  or  that 
two  contiguous  stations  were  occupied  at  the  same  time ;  *  or, 
as  Kurtz  ^  thinks,  that  the  object  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  is 
a  statistical  one,  that  is,  to  set  forth  not  all  the  halting-places, 
but  merely  the  places  where  a  regular  camp  was  formed  and 
the  sanctuary  erected,  while  in  earlier  passages  the  object  is  a 
historical  one,  hence  more  places  are  enumerated.  Hence, 
Num.  xxi.  11 — xxii.  1,  seven  places  are  mentioned  between 
Ije-abarim  and  the  plains  of  Moab ;  in  Num.  xxxiii.  44—48, 
only  three  places. 

In  Num.  xxxiii.  30-33,  we  find  the  names  Moseroth,  Bene- 
jaakan,  Ilor-hagidgad,  and  Jotbathah  ;  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7  they 
stand  thus:  Beeroth'  Bcne-jaakan,  Mosera,  Gudgodah,  and 
Jotbath.  As  to  the  trivial  variations  of  the  names,  nothing 
need  be  said.  The  latter  passage,  which  puts  Bene-jaakan 
before  Mosera,  probably  refers  to  a  second  visit  of  the  Israelites 
to  these  places,  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  wandering.  The 
first  time,  they  pursued  a  circuitous  course ;  the  second  time, 
the  shortest  and  most  direct  route,  thus  reversing  the  order  of 
the  two  places  named.* 

The  "  wilderness  of  Paran,"  Num.  x.  1 2  and  xii.  1 6,  is  probably 
mentioned  in  the  first  of  these  texts  by  anticipation.  Ranke  says : 
"  Before  entering  more  minutely  into  the  details  of  the  march, 
which  he  does  from  x.  33  onwards,  the  author  mentions  at  the 
very  outset  (x.  12)  the  ultimate  destination,  viz.  Paran,  on  the 
borders  of  tlie  promised  land."     So  Tuch  and  Ilengstenberg. 

'  So  DiividsoTi,  i.  ^ylfy,  and  Kcil  on  Num.  xxi.  16-20. 
-  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  384. 

•*  That  is,  "  wells  of  IJcnc-jaakan  "  =  I3enc-,jaakan  in  the  other  passajj;e. 
*  Sec  Ilcngstcnbcrf;,  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  355-357;  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  Old  Cov., 
iii.  '254,  255. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  373 

Kurtz*  thinks  that  x.  12  names  the  most  southerly,  and  xii.  16 
the  most  northerly,  station  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran. 

The  fact  that  different  names  were  applied  to  the  same 
localities  explains  such  cases  as  the  following:  Israelites'  station 
in  wilderness  of  Kedemoth,  Deut.  ii.  26 ;  on  Pisgah,  Num. 
xxi.  20,  21.  Moses'  outlook,  from  Abarim,  Num.  xxvii.  12; 
from  Pisgah,  Deut.  iii.  27  ;  from  Nebo,  Deut.  xxxiv.  1. 
Simeon's  cities  and  towns,  one  list.  Josh.  xix.  2-6 ;  a  varying 
list,  1  Chron.  iv.  28-31.  Also,  Abel-beth-maachah,  1  Ivings 
XV.  20 ;  Abel-maim,  2  Chron.  xvi.  4.  Gezer,  1  Chi-on.  xx.  4 ; 
Gob,  2  Sam.  xxi.  18,  with  a  multitude  of  similar  cases. 

Kadesh  is  said  to  have  been  located  in  the  wilderness  of 
Paran,  Num.  xiii.  26 ;  in  the  desert  or  wilderness  of  Zin,  Num. 
XX.  1 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  51.  With  respect  to  this  point  there  are 
several  hypotheses. 

1.  That  there  were  two  places  named  Kadesh,  situated,  re- 
spectively, as  above.  So  Reland,  Rabbi  Schwarz,  and  Stanley^ 
qualifiedly.  The  term  "  Kadesh,"  which  denotes  "  holy  place," 
may  well  have  been  applied  to  several  localities. 

2.  That  the  name  was  applied  both  to  a  certain  city  and  to 
an  extensive  region  in  which  this  city  lay.  So  Prof.  Palmer,' 
IVIr.  Ilayman,*  and  others. 

3.  That  the  one  city  Kadesh  was  situated  in  such  relation  to 
the  deserts  of  Paran  and  Zin  that  it  might  be  popularly  assigned 
to  either.  It  may  have  been  located  upon  the  dividing  line  of 
the  two  deserts,  or,  if  they  overlapped,  in  the  territory  common 
to  them  both.*  It  is  the  opinion  of  Fries,  Ilengstenberg,  Keil, 
Kurtz,  Raumer,  Robinson,  and  others  that  the  Israelites  were 
twice  at  Kadesh  —  once  in  the  second  year,  and  again  in  the 
fortieth  year  of  then-  wanderings.'    Ewald  thinks  that  "  Kadesh 

'  See  authorities  cited,  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  220. 
-  Sinai  anil  ralestine,  pp.  93,  94,  notes. 
^  Desert  of  I'xodus,  p.  420. 
<  Smith's  Bible  I)ift.,ii.  1519. 
'See  Smith's  IJible  Diet.,  Art.  "Paran." 
•  Kurtz,  iii.  246,  247,  305-809. 
82 


374  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 

was  only  the  resting-place  of  Moses  and  the  tabernacle,  and  the 

meeting-place  of  the  community  on  appointed  days." 

As  to    the  location  of    Meribah,  near  Rephidim,  Ex.  xvii. 

1-7 ;  near  Kadesh,  Num.  xx.  13,  we  know  that  on  two  distinct 

occasions    the   Israelites  rebelled  for  want  of   water.     Hence 

both  localities  were  appropriately  named  "  Meribah  "  (strife).^ 

On  the  second  occasion  Moses  and   Aaron  transgressed,  and 

offended  Jehovah. 

IsraeVs  boundary  the  Euphrates.  A  different  limit. 

Gen.  XV.  18;  Deut.  xi.24;  2Sam.viii.  3.  Num.  xxxiv.  10-12;  Josh.  xiii. 9-12. 

Keil  suggests  that  these  different  passages  give  the  Hmits  — 
the  maxima  and  minima  —  of  the  promise ;  the  actual  extent 
to  be  determined  by,  and  proportionate  to,  Israel's  loyalty  and 
fidelity  to  God.  It  is  thought  by  Ewald,-  Ilervey,  and  New- 
man ^  that  "  his  border,"  in  2  Sam.  viii.  3,  refers  not  to  David's 
border,  but  to  that  of  his  opponent. 

Israelites  returned  to  Gilgal.  Returned  to  Makkedah. 

Josh.  x.  15,  43.  Josh.  x.  21. 

Davidson,  Espin,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  and  others  take  the 

fifteenth  verse  as  a  part  of  the  quotation  from  the  "  book  of 

Jasher,"  —  the  citation  beginning  with  the  twelfth,  and  ending 

with  the  fifteenth  verse.     The  return  to  the  temporary  camp 

at  Makkedah  preceded  that  to  Gilgal. 

Jehoiakim  carried  to  Babylon.  Died  at  Jeiusalem. 

Apainst    him    came    up    Nebiichad-        So  Jehoiakim  slept  with  his  fathers, 
nezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  bound  him    2  Kinps  x.xiv.  6. 

in  fetters,  to  carry'him  to  Babylon.    2        lie  shall  be  buried  with  the  burial  of 
Ckron.  xxxvi.  6.  an  ass.  drawn  and  cast  forth  Ixyond 

the  pates  of  .lerusalem.     Jer.  xxii.  19. 
His  dead  body  shall  bo  cast  out  in 
the  day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the  night  tc 
thf>  frost.    Jer.  xxxvi.  30. 

Bertheau,  Ilasse,  and  Movers  think  that  the  Hebrew  of  the 
first  passage  implies  that  Jehoiakim  was  not  actually  carried 
to  Babylon.  Bleek*  pertinently  suggests  that  he  may  have 
gone  out  against  tlie  enemy,  and  been  slain  outside  the  city. 
Kawlinson  supposes  that  he  was  bound  witli  the  intention  of 

'  Sec  Kitfo,  iii.  1.^8.  -  Historj'  of  Israel,  ill.  150,  note. 

"  llistorj' of  Hebrew  Monarchy,  p.  80.  *  Introd.  to  Old  Teat.,  ii.  72,  78. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  375 

carrying  him  to  Babylon,  but  instead  was  slain,  and  his  corpse 
ignominiously  treated.  After  the  withdrawal  of  the  Baljylonians 
the  remains  were  collected  and  interred  in  the  royal  burial- 
place,  so  that,  ultimately,  the  unhappy  prmce  "  slept  with  his 
fathers."  Winer '  thinks  that,  at  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in 
the  next  reign,  the  enemy,  or  even  his  former  subjects,  may 
have  vented  their  rage  upon  the  remains  of  the  deceased 
Jehoiakim  in  the  manner  above  described.  Wordsworth  ^  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  of  all  the  kings  of  Judah  whose  deaths 
are  spoken  of  in  scripture,  Jehoiakim  is  the  only  one  whose 
burial  is  not  mentioned. 

Jeroboam's  residence  Shechem.  He  resided  at  Tirzah. 

1  Kings  xii.  25.  '         1  Kings  xiv.  12-17. 

He  lived  at  one  place  in  the  early,  at  the  other  in  the  later, 
part  of  his  reign.  Biihr  suggests  that  Tirzah  may  have  been 
merely  a  summer  residence  of  this  monarch. 

Jerusalem  in  Judah.  In  land  of  Benjamin. 

Josh.  XT.  8.  Josh,  xvlii.  28. 

The  city  was  actually  within  the  limits  of  the  territory  of 

Benjamin,  yet  on  the  very  border  line  of  Judah,'  so  that  it 

might  be  popularly  assigned  to  either  tribe.     Stanley,*  indeed, 

maintains  that  the  Jebusite  fortress  stood  upon  "  neutral  ground 

in  the  very  meeting-point  of  the  two  tribes";  and  Light  foot* 

mentions  a  Jewish  tradition  that  the  altars  and  sanctuary  were 

in  Benjamin,  the  courts  of  the  temple  in  Judah. 

Jordan,  —  "  this  side  "  east  of  river.  Phrase  denotes  west  of  river. 

Num.xxxv.l4;  Deut.  i.l;  Josh.  i. 14.    Josh,  xil.7;  xxii.7;  IChron.  xxvi.30. 

The  expression  "  this  side  Jordan,"  like  its  Hebrew  equiva- 
lent,® is  ambiguous,  and  may  denote  either  side  of  that  river, 
according  to  the  mental  stand-point  which  the  sacred  historian 
occupies  at  the  time  of  writhig.  So  Fujerst,  Gesenius.  and 
others. 

*  Real-Worterbnch,  i.  595.  -  Replies  to  Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  434. 
2  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  ii.  127-3.      ■•  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  175. 

*  Prospect  of  Temple,  chap.  1.    '  Sec  difl'erent  senses.  Num.  xxxii.19, 82. 


376  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

Joshua  conqxiered  all  Canaan.  Conquered  only  a  part. 

Josh.  xi.  16, 17,  23;  xii.  7,  8;  xxi.  43.  Josh.  xiii.  1-6;  Judg.  ii.  23. 

The  solution  appears  to  be  that  Joslma  had  virtually/  con- 
quered the  whole  land.  He  had  so  thoroughly  broken  the 
power  of  the  Canaanites  that  they  could  no  longer  make  head 
against  him.  The  land  was  now  within  the  grasp  of  the 
Israelites.  All  they  needed  to  do  was  to  go  forward  valiantly, 
and  occupy  it.  But,  through  indolence  and  unbelief,  they 
did  not  avail  themselves  fully  of  that  dominion  which  was  within 
their  reach. 

Josiah  died  at  Megiddo.  Died  at  Jerusalem. 

And  Ills  sprvanta  carried  him  in  a  And  they  brousht  him  to  Jprusalem, 

chariot  dead  from  Mepdd.), and  brought  and  he  died,  and  was  hiiriod  in  one  qf 

him  to  Jerusalem,  and  buried  him  in  the  sepulchres  ol  his  fathers.    2  Chron. 

his  own  sepulchre.    2  Kings  xxiii.  30.  xxxv.  24. 

Davidson,^  Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  Rawlinson  agree  that  the 
word  ''  meth,"  in  the  first  text,  may  mean  dying,  or  in  a  dying 
state.^  Josiah  was  carried  off  the  field  in  a  dyuig  condition ; 
he  expired  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem.* 

Law  given  at  Sinai.  Given  in  Iloreb. 

Ex.  xix.  11,  18.  Deut.  iv.  10-15. 

1.  Sinai  may  be  the  older,  and  Horeb  the  later  name.  So 
Davidson,  Stanley  *  apparently,  and  Ewald." 

2.  Horeb  may  be  a  general  name  of  the  district  or  range  of 
mountains,  and  Sinai  the  specific  name  of  some  peak.  So 
Hengstenberg,*'  Robinson,  Palmer,^  Rodiger,  Ritter,  Kurtz,  Dr. 
J.  P.  Thompson,^  and  others. 

3.  Sinai  may  be  taken  as  the  original  name  of  the  entire 
group,  whilst  Horeb  is  restricted  to  one  particular  mountain. 
Gesenius  takes  this  view;  and  Lepsius  thinks  that  the  two 
names  are  applied  alike  to  the  mountain  of  the  law.  Any  one 
of  these  hypotheses  relieves  the  difficulty  completely. 

•  SacTcd  llemicncut.,  p.  551.  -  See  use  in  Gen.  xx.  3. 

»  Compare  Zech.  xii.  11.  *  Sinai  ami  Palestine,  31,  note. 

'  History  of  Israel,  ii.  43,  note.  *  Gen.  of  Pent.,  ii.  327. 

'  Desert  of  Exodus,  p.  108.  "  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  3054. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  377 

Moses  commissioned  in  Midian.  Received  commission  in  Egypt. 

Ex.  iii.  10;  iv.  19.  Ex.  vi.  10-13. 

His  failure  to  persuade  Pharaoh  to  a  dismission  of  tlie 
Israelites,  as  well  as  the  sudden  revulsion,  on  their  part,  from 
buoyant  hope  to  unseemly  dejection,  rendered  it  absolutely 
necessary  that  Moses'  wavering  faith  should  be  strengthened 
by  a  solemn  renewal  of  his  commission. 

Nebuchadnezzar  encamped  at  Riblah.         Came  against  Jerusalem. 

2  Kings  XXV.  6.  2  Kings  xxv.  1. 

The  expression  "  came  against "  does  not  imply  that  he  came 
to  the  city  in  person.  He  sent  his  army  to  besiege  the  city ; 
but  he  himself  made  his  head-quarters  at  Riblah,  from  which 
place  he  could  conveniently  direct  hostile  operations  against 
Jerusalem  and  Tyre,  both  of  which  cities  he  was  besieging  at 
the  time. 
Passover  slain  at  home.  Slain  at  sanctuarij. 

Ex.  xii.  7.  Deut.  xvi.  1-7. 

The  first  precept  was  addressed  to  the  Israelites  in  Egypt, 

when  they  had  "  no  common  altar  "  nor  sanctuary ;  hence  the 

houses  in  which  they  dwelt  were,  so  to  speak,  consecrated  as 

altars  and  sanctuaries.     The  second  passage  contemplates  them 

as  settled  in  Palestine,  where  they  had  a  common  sanctuary, 

around  which  it  was  desirable  that  their  religious  sentiments, 

services,  and  associations  should  be  clustered.     Kurtz  ^  thinks 

that  the  words  "  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall 

choose"  ^  include  the  whole  city  in  which  the  tabernacle  was 

located ;  so  that  the  passover  might  be  slain  upon  any  spot 

within  that  city. 

Peter's  residence  Capernaum,.  Apparently  Bethsaida, 

Mark  i.  21,  29.  John  i.  44. 

Peter  and  his  brother  were  "  of  Bethsaida,"  in  that  they  were 

natives  of  that  city ;  yet  they  afterward  dwelt  in  Capernaum. 

Sanctuary  at  Shiloh.  Located  at  Shechein. 

Josh,  xviii.  1 ;  1  Sam.  iii.  21 ;  iv.  3.  Josh.  xxiv.  1,  26. 

Masius,  Michaelis,  and   other  critics   say   that  "  miqdash," 

*  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  218.  ^  In  Dcut.  xvi.  7. 

32* 


378  DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE    BIBLE. 

sanctuary,  in  the  last  text,  denotes  simply  the  holy  place  which 

Abraham  consecrated/  and  in  which  Jacob  dwelt  a  long  time, 

and  where  he  purified  his  family  from  idolatry.^     This  place, 

however,  was  different  from  the  "  sanctuary  "  proper,  where 

the  ark  had  its  seat.     Hengstenberg '^  has  clearly  shown  that 

the  phrase  "  before  God  "  does  not  invariably  imply  the  presence 

of  the  sacred  ark  or  tabernacle. 

Solomon's  ships  icent  to  Ophir.  They  loent  to  Tarshish. 

1  Kings  ix.  26-28.  1  Kings  x.  22;  2  Chron.  ix.  21. 

Rawlinson  thinks  that  different  fleets  are  intended ;  also 
that  the  name  "  Tarshish  "  was  applied  to  two  different  places, 
one  of  which  was  situated  on  the  shores  of  the  Indian  Ocean 
or  the  Persian  Gulf,  since  the  Phoenicians  had  trading  estab- 
lishments in  this  quarter,  and  were  in  the  habit  of  repeating 
their  local  names.  Hence  this  name,  like  our  term  "  Indies," 
may  have  been  applied  to  places  widely  separated.  It  was  to 
this  eastern  Tarshish,  and  not  to  that  in  Spain,  that  Solomon's 
fleet  made  the  triennial  voyage.* 

Bahr,  Bleek,*  Davidsou,^  DeWette,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Haver- 
nick,  Movers,  Winer,  and  Mr.  Twistleton,^  however,  take  the 
expression  "  ships  of  Tarshish,"  not  as  denoting  that  these  vessels 
actually  went  to  Tarshish,  but  that  they  were  of  the  kind  ordi- 
narily employed  in  commerce  with  that  place.  That  is, "  Tarshish- 
ships,"  like  our  term  "  East-Indiamen,"  would  loosely  indicate 
the  larger  class  of  merchant  vessels.  On  this  hypothesis,  the 
chronicler  *  misunderstood  the  appellation,  as  if  it  denoted  that 
these  ships  actually  went  to  Tarshish. 

Tabernacle  located  without  the  camp.  Within  the  camp. 

Num.  xi.  16,  24-26;  xii.  4.  Num.  ii.  2,  8. 

The  encampment  of  tlie  Israelites  was  arranged  in  the  form 

of  a  hollow  square,  with  a  large  unoccupied  space  in  the  middle. 

*  See  Gen.  xii.  C,  7.  *  Gen.  xxxiii.  19;  xxxv.  2,  4 
»  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  32-46.  ■•  1  Kings  x.  22. 

» In  trod,  to  Old  Test.,  i.  441.  « Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii  90. 

'  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  8178-3181.     See  references,  p.  3180. 

•  2  Chron.  ix.  21 ;  xx.  86,  87. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  379 

At  the  centre  of  this  space  the  tabernacle  was  located  ;  being 
thus,  as  is  thought,  some  two  thousand  cubits  removed,  on  all 
sides,  from  the  tents  of  the  people.  In  consequence  of  this 
isolation  of  the  tabernacle,  those  who  visited  it  were  necessitated, 
as  it  were,  to  leave  the  encampment,  and  ''  go  out "  to  the 
tabernacle.  The  latter  was  within,  yet  vu-tually  outside  of  the 
camp. 

A  recent  writer '  finds,  in  1  Kings  xix.  3,  8,  a  "  geographical 
anomaly,"  in  that,  as  he  thinks,  "  Elijah  is  represented  as 
travellmg  uninterruptedly  forty  days  and  forty  nights  from 
Beersheba  to  Iloreb ;  whereas  the  distance  is  little  more  than 
forty  geographical  miles."  To  which  we  reply:  (1)  That, 
according  to  the  best  maps,  such  as  those  of  Kiepert,  and  Smith 
and  Grove,  the  distance  is  some  two  hundred  statute  miles ; 
and  (2)  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  Elijah  was  walking  the 
whole  time,  neither  that  he  pursued  a  straight  course  in  his 
wanderings. 

The  same  author  -  finds  a  similar  difficulty  in  1  Sam.  x.  1-9, 
where,  as  he  maintains,  Saul  went  first  to  Rachel's  sepulchre, 
near  Bethlehem,  and  thence  to  (Mount)  Tabor  in  Zebulon,  across 
the  territory  of  four  tribes,  making  the  whole  circuit  in  a  single 
day.  But  the  Hebrew  ''  elon  tiibor,"  rendered  plain  of  Tabor 
in  vs.  3,  means,  according  to  Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  the  Septua- 
gint,  oak  of  Tabor.  Keil  and  Ewald  ^  say,  the  "  terebinth  of 
Tabor  "  ;  the  latter  adding  that  "  Tabor  "  is  certainly  only  "  a 
dialectic  variation "  for  "  Deborah,"  and,  with  Thcnius.  main- 
taining that  the  tree  in  question  was  that  under  which  Deborah 
was  buried.*  There  is  not  the  least  proof  that  Mount  Tabor  is 
here  intended. 

»  See  in  Davidson's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  36,  37. 

"  In  Davidson,  Vol.  i.  515. 

^  History  of  Israel,  iii.  21,  and  note. 

*  Gen.  XXXV.  8. 


380  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 


III.     CONCERNING  NUMBERS. 

We  have  previously,  more  than  once,  called  attention  to  the 

marked  resemblance  of  Hebrew  letters  to  one  another ; '  also, 

to  the  fact,  generally  conceded  by  scholars,  that  these  letters 

were  in  ancient  time  employed  to  represent  numbers.^     These 

two  facts  indicate  at  once  the  cause  and  the  solution  of  the 

numerical  discrepancies  of  scripture.     For,  when  a  denotes  2 ; 

3,  20 ;  3,  50 ;  and  D,  80 ;  when  T  stands  for  4,  "i  for  4000,  "i 

for  200,  and  n  for  400,  mistakes  in  numbers,  especially  when 

the  numeral  letters  were  blurred  or  unskilfully  written,  would 

be  inevitable.     But,  as   elsewhere   intimated,  these  mistakes, 

which  we  find  in  considerable  numbers,  touch  no  vital  point  of 

scripture.     No    precept,  promise,  or   doctrine  is  in    the   least 

degree  impaired  by  them;  nor  do  they  militate  against  any 

well-balanced  theory  of  inspiration.     That  the  larger  part  of 

the  following  cases  arose  through  the  mistakes  of  copyists  we 

have  not  a  shadow  of  doubt ;  yet,  since  other  solutions  have 

been  given  in  most  cases,  they  will  be  adduced  when  it  seems 

worth  while. 

Abraham's  only  son  Isaac.  Bad  several  sons. 

Gen.  xxii.  2;  Heb.  xi.  17.  Gen.  xxv.  6. 

Isaac  was  Abraham's  "  only  son  "  by  Sarah,  as  well  as  the 

only  one  in  the  line  of  promise — the  theocratic  line.     Or  the 

term  may  be  equivalent  to  "  beloved  son."     Josephus  ^  employs 

the  term  "  monogenes,"  only-begotten,  in  this  latter  sense. 

Absalom  had  three  son.t.  Ee  had  no  sons. 

2  Sara.  xiv.  27.  2  Sam.  xviii.  18. 

Previous  to  the  time  referred  to  in  the  latter  text,  his  three 

sons  had  died. 

Arah's  sons  seven  hundred  seventy-five.  Six  hundred  and  fi/ly-two. 

Ezra  ii.  5.  Neh.  vii.  10. 

Most  probably  the  difference  is  due  to  copyists'  blunders. 

»  See  pp.  20,  812,  818,  infra.  «  See  pp.  21-24,  infra. 

»  See  Antiq.  i.  18,  1,  and  xx.  2, 1. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.     .  381 

The  other  cases,  some  twenty  in  number,  which  appear  from 
a  comparison  of  Ezra  ii.  6-60,  with  Neh.  vii.  11-67,  are  to  be 
explained  in  the  same  manner.*  The  "  gifts "  of  the  people, 
as  set  down  by  the  two  writers,  vary  as  follows  : 

Ezra,  ii.  69.  Nehemiah,  vii.  70-72. 

Gold,  61000  drams  (a  copyist's  mis-    Gold,  from  Tirshatha,     1,000  drams, 
take).  from  chief  fathers,  20,000 

"    people,  20.000      " 

41,000 
/Sj7t;er,  5000  lbs.  (a  round  number).        Silver,  from  Tirshatha,  .500  lbs 

"      chief  fathers,  2,i00  " 
"      people,  2,000  " 

4,700  " 
Garments,  100  (a  round  number).  Garments,  given  by  Tirshatha,      .30 

"  people,         _67 

~97 

Keil  and  Bertheau  think  that,  in  the  seventieth  verse  from 

Nehemiah,  the  Hebrew  for  pounds  of  silver  has  dropped  out,  so 

that,  as  assumed  in  the  above  reckoning,  the  passage  would  stand, 

"  five  hundred  pounds  of  silver  and  thirty  priests'  garments." 

Altiug  points  out  the  fact  that  Ezra's  sum  total  is  29818 ; 
Nehemiah's,  31089;  and  that  the  latter  mentions  1765  persons, 
and  the  former  494  persons,  omitted  in  the  parallel  record. 
It  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  Ezra's  sum  total  added  to 
Nehemiah's  surplus  is  just  equal  to  the  latter's  sum  total  added 
to  the  former's  surplus.  That  is,  29818  -f-  1765  =  31089  -f- 
494  =  31583.  If  from  the  whole  amount,  42360,  given  by 
both  authors,  we  deduct  31583,  the  remainder  will  be  10777  ; 
"  omitted,"  says  Davidson,''  following  Alting.  "  because  they  did 
not  belong  to  Judah  and  Benjamin,  or  to  the  priests,  but  to  the 
other  tribes." 

Ambuscade,  thirty  thousand  men.  Five  thousand  men. 

Josh.  viii.  3-9.  Josh.  viii.  12. 

The  Jewish  interpreters  ^  maintain  that  there  were  two  am- 
buscades.   The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  verses  are  not  found  in  the 

*  See  lists  in  Keil's  Commentary;  also,  in  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  Old  Test., 
ii.  331,  332.     Compare  15ib.  Comment,  in  loc. 
^  Sacred  Hcrmencutics,  p.  504. 
^  Conciliator,  ii.  11. 


382  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE, 

Septuagint;^  hence,  some  critics  regard  them  as  a  marginal 
note  which  has  crept  into  the  text.  Tlie  best  explanation  is, 
that  the  copyist  wrote,  by  mistake,  in  the  tliird  verse,  ^,  30000, 
for  f\,  5000. 

Upon  the  same  hypothesis,  that  of  the  confounding  of  similar 
numeral  letters,  may  be  explained  all  such  cases  as  the  fol- 
lowing :  Chapiter's  length,  5  cubits,  1  Kings  vii.  1 6 ;  3  cubits, 
2  Kings  XXV.  17.  Deaths  by  plague,  24000,  Num.  xxv.  9 ; 
23000,  1  Cor.  x.  8  (Paul  ^  mai/  have  intended  to  include  only 
those  who  fell  "in  one  day").  Edomites  slain,  18000,  2  Sam. 
viii.  13  and  1  Chron.  xviii.  12 ;  12000,^  Ps.  Ix.  title  (the  slaughter 
is  attributed  to  king  David,  to  his  general-in-chief,  and  to  a 
subordinate,  according  to  a  common  figure  of  speech).  Fore- 
skins, 200,  1  Sam.  xviii.  25,  27;  100,  2  Sam.  iii.  14.  Horse- 
men, 700,  2  Sam.  viii.  4  ;  7000,  1  Chron.  xviii.  4  (Xun  final, 
"),  mistaken  for  dotted  Zayin,  H).*  Horsemen  40000,  and  chariots 
700,  2  Sam.  x.  18  ;  footmen  40000,  and  chariots  7000,  1  Chron. 
xix.  18  (Kcil :  It  is  very  evident  that  there  are  copyist's 
errors  in  both  texts).  House  and  porch,  —  height,  30  cubits, 
1  Kings  vi.  2;  120  cubits,  2  Chron.  iii.  4.  Levites, —  number, 
22000,  Num.  iii.  39;  23000,  Num.  xxvi.  G2  (the  1000  excess 
may  have  been  the  increase  during  the  interval).  Molten  sea* 
held  2000  baths,  1  Kings  vii.  26 ;  3000  baths,  2  Chron.  iv.  5 
(the  Hebrew  verb  rendered  "  contained "  and  "  held "  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  translated  "  received  "  ;  and  the  meaning  may 
be  that  the  sea  ordinarily  contained  2000,  but  when  filled  to  its 
utmost  capacity  received  and  held  3000  baths."  Or,  with  Bahr 
and  Keil,  we  may  say  that  f,  2000,  has  been  confounded  with 
Si,  3000).  OfTicers,  —  chief,  550, 1  Kings  ix.  23 ;  250,  2  Chron. 
viii.  10.     Overseers,  3300,  1  Kings  v.  16;  3600,  2  Chron.  ii. 

'  Davidson,  on  Hebrew  Text,  p.  44. 

2  Kwiild  (ii.  181,  note),  deems  it  "a  slifjht  slip"  of  Paul's  pen. 

'  Kwald  says  (iii.  1.^7,  note),  "a  clerical  cn'or." 

*  Uavidson,  Sacrcil  Hcmiencutics,  p.  544. 

'  So  Rawlinson;  also,  Taj'lor's  Calmet. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  383 

18  (the  sum  of  the  officers  and  overseers  is  the  same,  3850, 
in  each  case.  In  Ivings  authority,  in  Chronicles  nationality, 
seems  the  principle  of   division).^     Pillars'  length,  18  cubits, 

1  Kings  vii.  15 ;  35  cubits,  2  Chron.  iii.  15  (possibly  the  two 
were  cast  in  one  piece  35  cubits  long,  which,  cut  in  two,  made 
two  pillars,  in  round  numbers  18  cubits  long).^  Pomegranates, 
200,  1  Kings  vii.  20  ;  400,  1  IGngs  vii.  42  and  2  Chron.  iv. 
13  ;  100,  Jer.  Iii.  23  ;  96  on  a  side,  Jer.  Iii.  23  (if  the  two 
pillars  had  each  two  rows,  with  100  pomegranates  in  a  row, 
the  first  three  numbers  are  accounted  for.  Bahr  and  Rawlinson 
think  that  96  faced  the  cardinal  ^Joints,  while  the  other  four 
were  placed  at  the  angles).  Persons  slain,  800,  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
8;  300,  1  Chron.  xi.  11  (d,  the  initial  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
words  for  three  and  eight,  being  used  as  an  abbreviation,  a 
mistake  arose).^  Persons  slain,  5,  2  Kings,  xxv.  19  ;  7,  Jer. 
Iii.  25  (n,  5,  confounded  with  t,  7).  Stalls,  40000,  1  Kings  iv. 
26  ;  4000,  2  Chron.  ix.  25  (Ewald  ^  :  Hebrew  terms  for  four 
SinA  forty  confounded).     Talents,  420,  1   Kings  ix.  28;  450, 

2  Chron.  viii.  18  (D,  20,  confounded  wdth  5,  50).  Temple's 
length,  40  cubits,  1  Kings  vi.  17 ;  60  cubits,  1  Kings  vi.  2 
(the  whole  temple,  exclusive  of  the  porch,  was  60  cubits  long, 
vs.  2  ;  the  sanctuary  20  cubits,  vs.  16;  hence  the  temple  par 
excellence  was  40  cubits  in  length).  Temple  vessels,  2499, 
Ezra  i.  9,  10  ;  5400,  Ezra  i.  11  (ancient  interpreters  maintain 
that,  in  the  first  two  verses,  only  the  larger  and  more  valuable 
articles  are  specified;  while  the  sura  total,  in  vs.  11,  includes 
the  greater  and  the  less  together).*  In  all  these  cases  the 
hypothesis  of  copyist's  errors  affords  a  very  facile  and  reasonable 
explanation. 

'  Sec  Bib.  Com.  on  1  Kinss  v.  16. 

^  Davitlson,  Sacred  Ilcrmencutics,  pp.  548,  549. 

*  Kennicott,  DissertiUions,  i.  95,  96. 

*  History  of  Israel,  iii.  170,  note.     See  another  solution,   Davidson's 
Sacred  Ilcrmeneutics,  p.  548. 

^  Keil,  Commentary  in  loc. 


384  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Animals  employed,  —  one.  More  than  one. 

Mark  xi.  7.  Matt.  xxi.  5,  7. 

To  this  objection  of  Strauss,  Davidson^  replies  that  "kai,"  in 
the  last  clause  of  the  fifth  verse,  is  exegetical,  and  should  be 
rendered  even.  Hence  the  passage  would  read,  "  upon  an  ass, 
even  a  colt,"  etc. 

As  to  the  fact  that  the  seventh  verse  seems  to  represent 
Christ  as  riding  upon  both  animals,  Winer  ^  notes  that  by  a 
vague  idiom  the  *'  plural  of  class  "  is  often  put  for  the  singular ; 
as  when  we  say,  He  sprang  from  the  horses,  though  only  one 
of  the  team,  the  saddled  horse,  is  meant.  Upon  this  idiomatic 
use  of  the  plural  instead  of  the  singular  may  be  explained  the 
following  cases :  Jacob's  daughters.  Gen.  xlvi.  7  and  15.  Re- 
viling malefactors,  Matt,  xxvii.  44  and  Luke  xxiii.  39—41 
(Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Theophylact,  and  others  say  that  at  first 
both  malefactors  reviled  our  Lord,  but  that  later  one  repented).^ 
Tables  of  shew-bread,  1  Kings  vii.  48  and  2  Chron.  iv.  19. 

Animals  sacrificed,  thirteen.  Eleven  only. 

Lev.  xxiii.  18,  19.  Num.  xxviii.  27, 30. 

Jewish  interpreters  in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara,*  as  well  as 
Josephus,  Keil,  Kurtz,  and  others,^  maintain  that  the  offerings 
mentioned  in  Numbers  are  additional  to  those  prescribed  in 
Leviticus.  The  former  were  to  be  offered  before  the  latter, 
and  subsequent  to  the  daily  morning  sacrifice.  As  the  passages 
refer  respectively  to  different  points  of  time,  there  is  no  col- 
lision. Upon  the  same  theory  of  reference  to  different  occasions 
or  times,  we  may  readily  solve  cases  like  the  following:  Ben- 
jamin's sons.  Gen.  xlvi.  21,  and  Num.  xxvi.  38,  40;  1  Chron. 
vii.  G  (the  same  individual  may  have  borne  different  names  ; 
and,  during  the  interval  between  the  epochs  referred  to,  some 
of  the  sons  may  have  died).*     Captives,  2  Kings  xxiv.  14,  16 

1  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  i.  86.         "  Grammar  of  New  Test.  Idiom,  p.  175. 

*  Davidson's  Sacred  Ilermcneutics,  p.  5G2.  ■•  Conciliator,  i.  233. 
'  See  lUblc  Commentary  on  Lev.  xxiii. 

•  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  11.  50,  says  these  accounts  must  "  relate 
to  different  periods  of  time,  and  different  branches  of  the  same  line." 


HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  385 

and  Jer.  In.  28-30  (here  may  be  a  numerical  error,  or  the 
10000  in  Kings  may  have  included  not  only  the  4600  of 
Jeremiah,  but  also  those  captured  on  certain  other  occasions). 
Cities  of  refuge.  Num.  xxxv.  13 ;  Josh.  xx.  7,  8  and  Deut.  iv. 
41  (Moses  himself  appointed  three  cities,  and  Joshua  subse- 
quently confirmed  this  appointment,  rind  added  three  more 
cities).  Heads  of  people,  Ezra  ii.  3-35  and  Neh.  x.  14-27 
(Davidson^:  "The  number  had  increased  in  the  interval  between 
Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah").  Jair's  cities,  Judg.  x.  4  and 
Josh.  xiii.  30 ;  1  Chron.  ii.  22,  23  (these  passages  refer  to 
different  times.  Rawlinson  suggests  that,  as  the  "  Havoth " 
were  properly  "  villages "  or  "  small  hamlets,"  it  might  be 
difficult  to  fix  their  number  exactly.  According  to  Keil  and 
Bertheau,^  Kenath  and  her  daughter-towns,  thu-ty-seven  in 
number,  are  included  by  the  chronicler  among  Jair's  cities, 
thus  making  the  number  "sixty").  Jeduthun's  sons,  1  Chron. 
XXV.  3.  Jesse's  sons,  1  Sam.  xvi.  6-11 ;  and  1  Chron.  ii.  13-15 
(the  later  writer  omits  the  sons  who  died  early).  Michal's 
sons,  2  Sam.  xxi.  8  and  vi.  23  ("  Had  no  chUd  unto  the  day 
of  her  death  "  may  mean  simply  "  had  no  child  henceforward." 
Ewald  ^  and  De  Wette  *  say,  with  the  greatest  probability,  that 
Michal,  in  the  first  passage,  is  a  copyist's  mistake  for  Merab). 
Ransom,  Ex.  xxx.  13  and  Neh.  x.  32  (the  first  was  a  census 
tax ;  the  latter,  an  annual  tax).  Shemaiah's  sons,  1  Chron.  iii. 
22  (Jewish  critics  say  that  one  son  died  in  infancy).  Sim- 
eonites.  Num.,  i.  23  and  Num.  xxvi.  14  (here  may  be  a  numer- 
ical error ;  or,  since  Zimri,  one  of  the  ringleaders,  was  a 
Simeonite,  the  24000  who  died  in  the  matter  of  Baal-Peor" 
may  have  belonged  chiefly  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon  ;  hence  its 
remarkable  diminution).  Solomon's  gifts  to  Hiram,  1  Kings 
v.  11  and  2  Chron.  ii.  10  (Davidson^:  The  first  passage  specifies 

»  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  139.  -  Die  Buchcr  der  Chronik,  pp.  16, 17. 

'  Vol.  iii.  74,  note;  also  p.  1-36.  *  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  219. 

^  Num.  XXV.  6-14.  «  Sacred  Hermencutics,  p.  548. 
33 


386  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  articles  intended  for  Hiram's  household ;  the  second,  those 

for  his  workmen). 

Angels  seen,  one  seated.  Two  standing.  Two  seated. 

Matt,  xxviii.  2,  5;  Mark  xvi.  5.        Luke  xxiv.  4.  John  xx.  12. 

Ebrard/  with  other  critics,  has  made  it  clear  that  these  pas- 
sages relate  to  different  persons  and  times.  This  point  will  be 
considered  hereafter.  One  angel  appeared  at  a  given  time; 
two  appeared  at  another  time.  The  position  assumed,  also, 
may  have  varied  at  different  times.  Yet  the  Greek  word  in 
Luke,  rendered  "  stood  by,"  also  means  to  come  near,  to  appear 
to.  In  Luke  ii.  9  ;  Acts  xii.  7,  it  is  translated,  "  came  upon  "  ; 
hence,  in  the  text  in  question,  the  sense  may  be,  "  suddenly 
appeared  to  them." 

Appearances  of  Christ,  —  one  number.  Different  numbers, 

John  XX.  and  xxi.  ■  Luke  xxiv. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  .5-8. 

No  one  of  the  sacred  writers  claims  to  have  mentioned  all 
the  appearances  of  our  Lord.  Certain  cases  are  mentioned  by 
one  writer,  other  cases  by  another  writer,  —  each  laying  stress 
upon  those  instances  which  seemed  to  him  most  important,  yet 
not  denying  the  existence  of  other  instances. 

In  a  similar  manner  may  be  resolved  the  subjoined  cases : 
Blind  men,  Matt.  xx.  30  and  Mark  x.  46 ;  Luke  xviii.  35,  38 
(some  tliink  there  were  three-  blind  men  healed,  —  one  when 
Jesus  entered  the  city,  the  other  two  when  he  left  it ;  others 
suppose  that  two  were  healed,  —  one  in  tlie  ap2:)roach  to  Jericho, 
the  other  in  the  departure  from  it, — and  that  Matthew,  greatly 
condensing  the  narrative,  speaks  of  both  events  as  if  occurring 
during  the  departure  from  the  city.'  Others  give  to  the  Greek 
verb  in  Luke  the  ben.se  to  be  nigh  or  near*  and  take  the 
passage  as  meaning  .^iimply  that  Jesus  was  still  near  the  city ; 
iNIark  and  Luke  mentioning  only  the  better  known  of  the  two 

'  Oospel  History,  pp.  447,  448,  452. 

-  So  Davidson,  Sacred  Ilcrmcncutics,  pp.  558,  559. 

="  See  ICbrard,  pp.  .^Gi-.'iOG. 

*  See  iyji^u  in  Liddell  and  Scott;  also  in  Robinson's  New  Test.  Lexicon. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  387 

blind  men).  Convocations  and  feasts,  Lev.  xxiii. ;  Num. 
xxviii.,  xxix.  and  Ex.  xxiii.  14-lG  ;  xxxiv.  18-23;  Deut. 
xvi.  1-16  (in  the  latter  passages  only  the  three  feasts  are 
mentioned  in  ■which  all  the  males  were  required  to  present 
themselves  at  the  sanctuary).  Demoniacs,  Luke  viii.  27  and 
Matt.  yiii.  28  (only  the  more  prominent  one  mentioned  by 
Luke).  Levites,  —  classes,  Neh.  x.  9-13  and  Neh.  xii.  8,  9 
(in  the  latter  case  only  the  more  noticeable  are  specified). 
Tribes  loyal,  1  Kings  xi.  32,  36  and  xii.  21  (of  the  two  con- 
tiguous tribes,  Judah  and  Benjamin,  the  former  was  vastly 
more  powerful,  and  virtually  absorbed  the  latter,  hence  the 
two  were  spoken  of  as  one  tribe). 

Beasts  in  ark,  two  of  each  kind.  Seven  of  a  kind. 

Gen.  vi.  19,  'JO.  Gen.  vii.  2,  3. 

The  second   injunction   may  be   simply  an  amplification  of 

the  former  given  some  hundred  and  twenty  years  previously. 

At  first,  it  was  said  that  a  pair  of  every  kind  of  beasts  should 

be  preserved ;  afterwards,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  few  clean 

beasts,  there  should  be  preserved  not  one  pair  only,  but  seven 

pairs.^     Abarbanel  ^  takes  the  first  passage  as  simply  asserting 

that  the   beasts    should    come  paired,  male  and  female ;   the 

second  as  specifying  the  number  of  the  pairs  —  seven  of  the 

clean,  two  of  the  unclean,  animals. 

Benjamites  slain,  26,100.  The  number,  25,000. 

Judg.  XX.  15, 47.  Judg.  xx.  46,  47. 

The  Jewish  interpreters  say  that  25000  were  slain  on  the 

last  day  —  "  that  day  "  (vs.  35,  46)  ;  while  the  other  1100  were 

.  slain  on  the  preceding  days.     Or,  if  vs.  46  gives  in  "  romid 

numbers"  the  exact  statement  of  vs.  35  (25000  for  25100), 

we  have  still  1000  slain  previous  to  the  last  day  of  the  contest. 

Cities  and  villages,  twenty-nine.  Thirty-eight  in  number. 

Josh.  XV.  32.  Josh.  xv.  21-32. 

Rashi,  Kimchi,  and  Menasseh  ben  Israel '  call  attention  to 

*  Bible  Commentary,  in  lor.  -  Conciliator,  i.  37. 

"  Conciliator,  ii.  22,  28. 


388  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

the  fact  that  in  Josh.  xix.  1-6  we  find  nine  of  these  cities  (if 

Chesil   and   Bethul    are    identical,  as  is   probable)  set  off    to 

Simeon.     As   nine  from    thirty-eight  leaves    twenty-nine,  the 

first  passage  gives  the  remainder  after  the  cession,  the  second 

sets  forth  the  original  number.     Or,  with  Keil,  we  may  suppose 

a  slight  numerical  error  in  the  case. 

City's  dimensions,  1000  cubits.  Two  thousand  cubits. 

Num.  XXXV.  4.  Num.  xxxv.  5. 

There  are  various  explanations  of  this  case.^  The  Jewish 
interpreters  say  that  the  city  and  lands  thereto  belonging  were 
arranged  in  three  concentric  circles.  Of  these  the  city  occu- 
pied the  inner  one  ;  the  next  larger,  with  a  radius  1000  cubits 
greater,  formed  the  suburb  proper ;  while  the  outmost,  with  a 
radius  still  increased  by  1000  cubits,  was  devoted  to  fields  and 
vineyards. 

Davidson,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Keil  suppose  the  city  to  be 
1000  cubits  square.  Around  this  square  another  is  formed, 
with  its  corresponding  sides  parallel  to,  and  1000  cubits  distant 
from,  those  of  the  first.  The  outer  square  or  suburb  will  there- 
fore be  3000  cubits  on  a  side.  Measuring  from  any  corner  of 
the  city  along  its  wall  and  across  the  suburb  to  the  side  of  the 
external  square,  we  have  a  line  of  2000  cubits,  in  conformity 
with  the  dimensions  given  above. 

Mr.  Espin  ^  thinks  that,  whatever  the  shape  of  the  city,  the 

8uburl)s  were  to  extend  a  thousand  cubits  outward  from  any 

point  in  the  city  wall ;  while  on  the  four  sides,  north,  south, 

east,  and  west,  the  frontage  was  to  be  not  less  than  2000  cubits 

in  length. 

Generations,  forty-two.  A  different  number. 

Matt.  i.  17.  Matt.  i.  2-16. 

The  first  "  fourteen  "  extends  from  Abraham  to  David ;  the 

second,  from  David  to  the  deportation  ;  the  third,  from  Jccho- 

nias  to  Christ,  inclusive  in  each  case.     So  Alford,  Robinson, 

1  See  some  ci^ht  solutions  in  Kitto,  ii.  828-825. 

2  Bible  r/ommcniary,  in  lot:. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  389 

Gardiner,  and  others.  Ebrard  ^  makes  the  first  series  begin 
witli  Abraham  and  end  with  David,  the  second  begin  with 
Solomon  and  end  with  Jeehonias,  the  third  begin  with  Salathiel 
and  end  with  Christ,  inchasive.  He  maintains,  with  Spanheim 
and  Lightfoot,  that  certain  kings  are  omitted  by  Matthew 
because  of  their  great  wickedness,  and  their  intermarriage 
with,  or  descent  from,  heathen  women.^  Dr.  Mill '  shows  tliat 
it  was  a  common  practice  among  the  Jews  to  distribute  their 
genealogies  into  divisions  according  to  some  favorite  or  mystical 
number ;  and  that,  in  order  to  do  this,  generations  were 
rejaeated  or  left  out. 

Many  critics  think  that,  since  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin 
differ  in  Greek  only  hy  a  single  letter,  "  Jeehonias  "  in  Matt. 
i.  11  denotes  the  former,  in  vs.  12  the  latter,  individual.  On 
this  hypothesis,  the  second  "  fourteen  "  ends  with  "  Jeehonias  " 
(Jehoiakim),  and  the  third  begins  with  "Jeehonias"  (Jehoi- 
achin) ;  and  there  is  no  deficiency. 

Jacob' s  family ,  seventy  persons.  Seventy-five  persons. 

Gen.  xlvi.  27.  Acts  vii.  14. 

Jacob's    children,    grandchildren,    and    great-grandchildren 

amounted  to  sixty-six.*    Adding  Jacob  himself,  and  Joseph  with 

his  two  sons,  we  have  seventy.     If  to  the  sixty-six  we  add  the 

nine  wives  of  Jacob's  sons  (Judah's  and  Simeon's  wives  were 

dead ;  Joseph  could  not  be  said  to  call  himself,  his  own  wife,  or 

his  two  sous  into  Egypt ;  and  Jacob  is  specified  separately  by 

Stephen),  we  have  seventy-five  persons,  as  in  Acts.^ 

People,  — number.  A  different  statement. 
•                  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9.  1  Chion.  xxi.  5. 

800,000  men  of  Israel.  1100,000  men  of  Israel. 

500,000  men  of  Judah.  470,000  men  of  Judah. 

The  difference  may  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  statements 

are  founded  ujion  oral  tradition,  and  not  ujion  public  records. 

'  Gospel  History,  pp.  149,  150.    As  the  pedip;ree  is  "juridical,  and  not 
strictly  fiencalo^ical,"  he  reckons  Mary  herself  as  one  of  the  third  scries. 
-  Sec  Dcut.  vii.  2-4;  Ezra  ix.  1,  2. 
"  On  Mythical  Interpretation  of  Gospels,  pp.  1.50-lGl. 
*  Gen.  xlvi.  8-26.  ''  Davidson's  Sacred  Ilcrmencutics,  pp.  582,  583. 

83* 


390  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Or  there  may  be  copyist's  errors  in  one  or  both  cases.  An 
elaborate  ex2:ilanation  based  upon  the  suppositio}i  that  the  dif- 
ference is  due  to  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  the  standing 
army  may  be  seen  in  Davidson's  Sacred  Hermeneutics.* 

Priests,  —  classes,  four.  Twenty-two  classes. 

Ezra  ii.  36-39.  Neh.  xii.  1-7. 

The  number  in  Ezra  is  that  which  was  fixed  upon  at  the 
outset.  It  was  immediately  enlarged,  in  the  attempt  to  conform 
to  the  pre-exile  arrangement. 

Shekels  paid  by  David.  A  different  statement. 

So  David  bought  the  threshinjr-floor  So  David  pave  to  Oman  for  the  place 

and  tlie  oxen  for  tifty  shekels  of  silver.  sLx  hundred  shekels  of  gold  by  weight. 

2  Sam.  xxiv.  24.  1  Chron.  xxi  25. 

Of  a  variety  of  explanations,  three  may  be  adduced:  (1) 
That  we  have  here  a  copyist's  mistake,  which  could  very  easily 
happen.  (2)  That  the  first  passage  gives  the  price  of  the 
oxen  simply,  thus  :  "  So  David  bought  the  threshing-floor,  and 
the  oxen  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver."  The  phraseology  of  the 
second  passage,  "  So  David  gave  to  Oman  for  the  place"  etc., 
seems  to  favor  this  view.  ( 3)  That  David  purchased,  first,  the 
threshing-floor  —  a  plat  of  ground  "  probably  not  100  feet  in 
diameter,"  with  the  oxen ;  then,  afterwards,  bethought  himself 
to  buy  the  place,  "  maqom,"  —  the  whole  hill  of  Moriah, — for 
which  latter  he  paid  "  600  shekels  of  gold." 
Solomon's  wives,  one  thousand.  One  hundred  and  forty. 

1  Kings  xi.  3.  Cant.  vi.  8. 

Perhaps  the  "  virgins  without   number  "  —  who   may  have 

been,  as  Newman  ^  thinks,  held  merely  as  hostages,  —  made 

up  the  one  thousand.     Ginsburg,  Kleuker,  jMagnus,  and  Rosen- 

miillcr   take    the   expression  in  Canticles    as    a   poetical  one, 

denoting  simply  a  large  number.     Zockler  thinks  it  refers  to 

an  earlier  period  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  before  he  fell  into 

idolatry  and  other  sins. 

Tilings  in  ark,  three.  The  tables  of  stone  only. 

Ilcb.  ix.  4.  Ex.  xl.  20;  Dcut.  x.  5;  1  Kings  viii.  9. 

We  have  previously  seen  that  the  "  book  of  the  law "  was 
»  Pp.  546,  547.  Also,  Bib.  Com.  on  1  Chron.  xxi.  5.       »  See  p.  296  infra. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  391 

not  put  into,  but  by  the  side  of,  the  ark.'  The  text  from 
Hebrews,  which  asserts  that  the  "  pot  of  manna  "  and  "Aaron's 
rod  "  were  in  tlie  ark,  probably  refers  to  the  original  arrange- 
ment.    Later  the  two  were  removed. 

Unclean  birds,  twenty.  Twenty-one  mentioned. 

Lev.  xi.  13-19.  Deut.  xiv.  12-18. 

The  Hebrew  terms  '•  daah "  and  "  raiih,"  translated,  in  the 

first  and  second  passages,  respectively,  vulture  and  glede,  differ 

only  in  their  initial  letters  *i  and  "i.     Critics  generally  assume 

a  slight  error  of  transcription  in  the  case.     On  this  hypothesis, 

if  we  drop  the  superfluous  word   "  dayyah "  (omitted  in  the 

Samaritan  version,  the  Septuagint,  and  several  mss.^)  rendered 

vulture  in  the  second  passage,  the  discrepancy  vanishes.     Or, 

with  Aben  Ezra  and  KeU,  we  may  take  the  term  "  rajih,"  in 

the  second  passage,  as  the  name  of  the  genus  wliich  includes 

the  several  species,  some  of  wliich  are  subsequently  named.^ 

Visitors  at  the  sepulchre.  Different  statements. 

One  woman.    John  xx.  1.  Three  women.     Mark  xvl.  1. 

Two  women.    Matt,  xxvlii.  1.  Five  or  more  women.    Luke  xxiv.  10. 

Observe  (1)  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists  denies  that  more 
women  were  present  than  those  he  mentions  by  name.  John 
does  not  assert  that  Mary  Magdalene  only  was  present ;  in 
fact,  he  intimates  the  contrary,  for  he  represents  her  as  saying, 
in  vs.  2,  "  We  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him."  Each 
writer  seems,  while  not  denying  the  presence  of  other  persons, 
to  smgle  out  one  or  more  whom,  for  some  reason,  he  mentions 
with  particularity.  This  explanation  of  the  case  is  perfectly 
reasonable,  as  the  following  illustration  will  evince.  In  the 
year  1824  Lafayette  visited  the  United  States,  and  was  every- 
where welcomed  with  honors  and  pageants.  Historians  will 
describe  these  as  a  noble  incident  in  his  life.  Other  writers 
will  relate  the  same  visit  as  made,  and  the  same  honors  as 

1  Deut.  xxxi.  26.  *  Davidson,  on  Hebrew  Text,  p.  37. 

*  Ben  Gershon  thinks  that  riXI  keen-si<jhted,  and  nx'n  ("''"  anotlier 
form  of  the  same  word)  sicift-fiijiiir/,  botli  denote  the  same  bird.  See 
Conciliator,  i.  225.    Also,  compare  Wood's  Bible  Animals,  p.  360. 


392  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

enjoyed,  by  two  persons,  Lafayette  and  his  son.'  Yet  tliere 
will  be  no  contradiction  between  these  two  classes  of  writers. 
No  more  is  there  between  the  evangelists  relative  to  the 
nvunber  of  women  who  visited  the  sepulchre. 

Or  (2)  we  may  take  the  sacred  writers  as  referring  to 
different  points  of  time,  each  specifying  the  number  present  at 
the  time  to  which  he  refers.  There  were  two  distinct  parties^ 
of  women  —  the  Marys  and  their  friends,  and  the  Galilean 
women  —  who  followed  our  Lord.  Probably  the  women, 
having  lodged  among  their  friends  in  different  parts  of  the  city, 
and  to  avoid  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  would  come  by 
different  paths  to  the  sepulchre,  and  would  not  arrive  at  the 
same  moment.  We  may,  therefore,  suppose  that  Mary  Mag- 
dalene arrived  first  (so  John)  ;  soon  the  other  Mary  arrives 
(so  Matthew)  ;  then  Salome  comes  (so  Mark)  ;  finally,  the 
"other  women"  make  their  appearance  (so  Luke).  As  we 
shall  see  hereafter,  a  hypothesis  of  this  kind  removes  the  diffi- 
culty as  to  the  time  of  the  visit  to  the  tomb.* 

IV.     CONCERNING   TIME, 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  repeat  what  has  been  said  relative 
to  discrepancies  resulting  from  the  confounding  of  similar 
numeral  letters.  Obviously,  in  those  cases  where  questions  of 
time  are  involved,  the  liability  to  errors  of  the  above  kind 
becomes  an  element  of  prime  importance.  Taking  this  factor 
into  account,  together  with  others  we  have  pointed  out,^  —  the 
use  of  different  methods  of  reckoning  time,  and  the  grouping 
of'  events  not  chronologically,  but  upon  the  principle  of  asso- 
ciation, —  and  we  are  enabled  to  solve  witli  facility  such  cases 
of  discrepancy  as  the  following  relative  to  time. 

Abraham's  age  at  migration  75  years.  Apparently  135  years. 

Gen.  xii.  4.  Gen.  xi.  26,  32;  Acts  vii.  4. 

In  the  twenty-sixth  verse,  Abraham  may  be  mentioned  first, 

*  See  Robinson's  Enijlish  Harmony,  p.  181.        *  Sec  Kitto,  ii.  582,  585. 
'  Comp.  pp.  327-380  infra.  *  See  pp.  9-14  infra. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  393 

simply  on  account  of  his  theocratic  importance :  as  Moses  is 

usually  named   before  Aaron,  who   was   the   elder.     So   that 

Abraham  may  have  been  the  youngest  son,  born  when  Terah 

was  130  years  old.'     It  would  then  follow  that  Abraham  left 

Haran  at  the  age  of  75,  his  father  having  previously  died,  at 

the  age  of  205  years.     This  removes  the  difficulty. 

Some   Jewish   interpreters,  however,  think    that   Abraham 

actually  left  Haran  sixty  years  before  his  father's  death.     On 

this  theory,  Stephen,  in  asserting  that  Abraham  left  afier  his 

father's  death,  simply  followed   the  then  commonly  received, 

though   inaccurate,    chronology.       So    EwakV    Keil,    Kurtz,' 

Lange,  Murphy,  and  others. 

Absalom's  tarry  forty  years.  Could  not  have  been  so  long. 

2  Sam.  XV.  7.  1  Kings  ii.  11. 

*De  Wette  *  observes,  "  We  are  not  told  from  what  point  of 

time  the  forty  years  are  reckoned."     But  Josephus,^  followed 

by  Ewald,®  Hervey,  and  most  critics,  assumes  that  there  is  a 

copyist's  error  in  the  case.     In  the  same  manner  such  cases  as 

the  following  are  to  be  explained.     Famine  —  duration,  2  Sam. 

xxiv.  13  and  1  Chron.  xxi.  11,  12  (De "Wette:  a,  3,  mistaken 

for  t,  7).     Jerusalem  burned,  2  Kings  xxv.  8  and  Jer.  lii.  12 

(Biihr:  t,  7,  confounded  with  "i,  10).     Jerusalem  captured,  Jer. 

xxxvi.  9  and  Dan.  i.  1   (Pusey  ^  thinks  that  the  bare  mention 

that  Jehoiakim  was  captured  implies  that  the  city  was  not  then 

captiu-ed.     Keil  renders  Dan.  i.  1 :  Nebuchadnezzar  went,  set 

out,  to  Jerusalem). 

Adam  died  on  the  day  of  his  fall.  Lived  930  years. 

Gen.  ii.  17.  Gen.  v.  5. 

In    that  very  day  he  became  spiritually  dead  — "  dead  in 

trespasses  and    sins";*   "alienated   from  the   life    of    God."' 

Also,  in  a  physical  point  of  view,  death  began  then  to  prey 

'  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  528 ;  also,  Hackett  on  Acts. 

2  Vol.  i.  325,  note.  ^  Vol.  i.  204,  205. 

<  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  212.    ^  Ant.  vii.  9,  1. 

*  Vol.  iii.  170,  nOte.  '  Lectures  on  Daniel  the  Prophet,  p.  899, 

«  Eph.  ii.  1.  »  Eph.  iv.  18. 


394  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

upon   him ;  the   seeds   of   mortaHty  were   sown  in   his  body. 

That  which   miglit  have  been  but  a   jDaiuless  and  longed-for 

translation  became  a  painful  and  dreaded  dissolution. 

Agag  mentioned  at  a  certain  time.  Did  not  live  till  later. 

Xum.  xxiv.  7.  1  Sam.  xv.  2-8. 

Balaam  was,  for  the  time,  uttering  predictions  under  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,'  hence  he  may  have  mentioned 
a  man  not  yet  born.  Besides,  the  name  "  Agag"  was  probably 
hereditary  to  the  chieftains  of  Amalek,  as  "  Pharaoh"  was  to 
the  Egyptian  monarchs.  Hence  the  Agag  of  the  second  passage 
would  be  a  later  one  bearing  the  same  name. 

Other  examples  of  alleged  premature  mention  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  Amalek  ;  compare  Gen.  xiv.  7  ;  Num.  xxiv.  20  and 
Gen.  xxxvi.  12  (Esau's  son  may  have  been  named  after  the 
original  Amalek ;  or  the  "  country  of  the  Amalekites,"  Gen. 
xiv.  7,  may  have  been  styled  thus  by  historical  anticipation, 
having  acquired  the  name  previous  to  the  time  when  Moses 
wrote.  Amalek  may  be  termed  the  "  first  of  the  nations,"  -  as 
being  the  first  that  assailed  Israel,  or  as  pre-eminent^  among 
the  neighboring  nations  at  the  time  when  Balaam  uttered  the 
words).  Gilgal,  Deut.  xi.  30  and  Josh.  iv.  19,  20;  v.  9  (two 
different  places  are  intended ;  one  of  which  may  have  been 
that  now  known  as  Jiljilia  or  Jiljulieh;*  the  site  of  the  other 
is  not  determined).  Hebrews,  —  land,  Gen.  xl.  15  and  Josh, 
i.  1 1  (since  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  had  "  effected  something 
like  permanent  settlements "  at  various  points  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,  it  may  have  been  popularly  termed  the  "  land  of  the 
Hebrews,"  *  although  the  latter  had  not  as  yet  taken  possession 
of  it.     Besides,  Joseph  doubtless  knew  very  well  that,  accordmg 

*  Num.  xxiv.  2,1G. 

*  Sec  Num.  xxiv.  20. 

"  See  same  Hebrew  expression  in  Amos  vi.  1. 

*  l{obinson,  Later  Bib.  Res.,  pp.  138,  139 

'•  Tliis  name  seems  to  mean  "  trans- Euphratics,"  that  is,  those  who  had 
come  across  the  Euphrates.  See  Josh.  xxiv.  14;  alsa  Kurtz,  i.  1G7-169, 
and  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  987. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  395 

to  the  divine  promise,  the  laud  of  Canaau  belonged  to  the 
Hebrews).  Hebron,  Gen.  xiii.  18  and  Josh.  xiv.  15 ;  xv.  13 
(the  best  critics  agree  that  tho  original  name  was  Hebron  ; 
afterwards  Ku-jath-arba  was  substituted;  then  the  old  name 
Hebron  was  revived.  Quite  similar  has  been  the  fate  of  Jeru- 
salem. After  Hadrian's  conquest  the  early  name  "  Jerusalem  " 
was  displaced,  and,  dropping  out  of  contemporaneous  history, 
was  forgotten.  The  new  city  bore  the  name  of  "  ^lia  Cap- 
itolina."  Not  till  the  reign  of  Constantine  did  the  old  name 
come  again  into  use).'  Joshua,  Ex.  xvii.  9  ;  xxiv.  13  and 
Num.  xiii.  1 6  (the  author,  as  Kurtz  thinks,  writing  after  the 
naihe  Joshua  had  become  common,  employs  it  by  anticipation. 
Or  Joshua  may  have  received  the  name  at  the  defeat  of 
Amalek,^  in  which  case  Num.  xiii.  1 6  should  be  rendered,  "  And 
Moses  had  called  Oshea,"^  etc.).  Kings  in  Israel,  Gen.  xxxvi. 
31  and  1  Sam.  x.  24,  25  (the  idea  of  monarchy  was  familiar 
to  the  Israelites  from  the  example  of  the  surrounding  nations, 
all  of  which  had  kings.  Besides,  there  were  express  promises  ■• 
to  Abraham  and  Jacob  that  Mngs  shoidd  spring  from  them). 
Levites'  land.  Lev.  xxv.  32-34 ;  Num.  xxxv.  2-8  and  Josh, 
xxi,  2,  3,  41  (in  the  first  two  passages  the  land  is  mentioned 
by  anticipation).  Luz,  Josh.  xvi.  2  and  Judg.  i.  26  (Eichhorn 
and  Bertholdt  say  that  different  places  are  meant.  The  name 
"  Luz  "  was,  according  to  the  second  text,  trarftferred  to  another 
town).'*  Ophir,  Gen.  x.  29  and  1  Kings  ix.  28  (the  Ophir  of 
the  first  text  seems  to  have  been  a  man,  or  else  a  tribe.  Either 
might  give  name  to  the  place).  Sabbath,  Gen.  ii.  2,  3 ;  Ex. 
xvi.  23  and  Ex.  xx.  8  (the  Sabbath  may  have  been  observed 
from  early  times,  although  no  explicit  injunction  to  that  effect 

'  See  "  .lerusalem,  the  City  of  Herod  and  Saladin,"  by  Bcsant  and  Pal- 
mer, pp.  54,  55;  also.  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  ii.  1309. 

-  Kx.  xvii.  9, 

^  So  Uosenmiiller,  Eichhorn,  and  Kanne;  and  substantially  Hensstenberg 
and  lianke. 

<  Gen.  xvii.  G,  IG;  xxxv.  11. 

»  See  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1G99,  1700. 


396  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 

is  recorded  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai).  Tab- 
ernacle, Ex.  xxxiii.  7  and  Ex.  xl.  17  (it  is  possible  that  the 
narrative  does  not  follow  the  chronological  order,  and  that  the 
tabernacle  proper  was  completed  before  the  time  referred  to 
in  the  first  text.  Or,  since  the  usual  word  for  tabernacle, 
"  mishkiin,"  is  not  used  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  at  all,  the 
reference  may  be  to  an  old  sanctuary  or  sacred  tent  which  had 
come  down  from  the  days  of  the  patriarchs.  So  Michaelis, 
Le  Clerc,  and  Rosenmiiller.  Otherwise,  it  may  have  been 
Moses'  own  tent,  set  apart  for  this  temporary  purpose.  So 
the  Septuagint,  Syriac,  Aben  Ezra,  Rashi,  Keil,  Kurtz,  and 
Wogue).  Temple,  1  Sam.  i.  9 ;  iii.  3,  and  1  Kings  vi.  14  (the 
Hebrew  word  "  hekal,"  in  the  first  two  texts,  means  a  large 
building  or  dwelling,  an  edifice,  and  is  not  restricted  to  the 
Temple  proper.  Gesenius  says  it  is  applied  to  "  the  sacred 
tabernacle  in  use  before  the  building  of  the  Temple").  Temple- 
mount,  Ex.  XV.  13-17  and  2  Chron.  iii.  1  (there  is  no  proof  that 
the  real  temple-mount  is  here  specified.  That  Jehovah  would, 
however,  select  a  "  high  and  stately  mountain  "  ^  in  Canaan  as 
the  place  of  his  sanctuary  was  the  natural  inference  of  Miriam, 
who  was  doubtless  familiar  with  the  promises  and  with  the 
history  of  the  patriarchs).^  Testimony,  Ex.  xvi.  34  and  Ex. 
xl.  20  (the  first  passage  was  written,  probably,  near  the  close 
of  INIoses'  life,  by  historic  anticipation,  in  order  to  finish  the 
story  about  the  manna). 

Ahah  died  in  I9ih  year  of  Jehoshaphat.  In  his  iTth  year. 

1  Kings  XV.  10;  xvi.  29;  xxii.  41.  1  Kings  xxii.  51. 

Most  probably  the  difference  arose  from  a  slight  mistake  in 

numeral  letters.     It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 

Hebrews    had    peculiar    methods  of   reckoning  the  length  of 

reigns.     Regnal    years  seem   to   have  been  counted  from  the 

beginning  of  the  year,  not  from  the  day  of  the  king's  accession. 

Thus,  if  a  king  began  to  reign  in  the  last  month  of  one  year, 

reigned  the  whole  of  the  next  year,  and  one  month  of  (he  third, 

'  Kurtz,  ii.  856.  *  See  Gen.  xxii.  2;  Ex.  iii.  1,  2. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  397 

we  should,  although  his  reigu  lasted  not  over  fourteen  months, 
have  dates  in  his  first,  second,  and  third  years.  Any  dates  in  the 
year  of  his  accession,  but  previous  to  that  event,  or  in  the  year 
of  his  death,  but  subsequent  to  it,  would  be  assigned  to  the  last 
year  of  his  predecessor  or  to  the  first  of  his  successor.^  Thus, 
as  Rashi  ^  says,  since  parts  of  years  are  reckoned  as  whole  ones, 
we  shall  have  the  same  year  sometimes  twice  reckoned,  once  to 
the  father,  and  then  again  to  the  son.  The  Talmudists  say 
that  the  years  of  the  kings  are  reckoned  from  the  month  Nisan 
to  Nisan  again,  and  that  with  such  precision  that  even  a  single 
day  before  or  after  Nisan  is  coimted  for  a  year.  Hence,  if  a  kinof 
reigned  from  the  first  day  of  Nisan,  a  year  and  a  day,  to  the 
second  day  of  the  next  Nisan,  he  was  reckoned  as  reigning  two 
years.  So  Keil  and  Bahr.  Taking  these  facts  into  account, 
together  with  the  use  of  roimd  numbers,  and  of  different  and 
sometimes  obscure  eras  of  computation,^  and  it  is  obvious 
that  Hebrew  chronology  becomes  somewhat  complicated  and 
intricate. 

Should  it  be  objected  that  the  above  methods  of  computation 
adopted  by  the  Hebrew  historians  are  incorrect,  we  reply  that 
those  were  their  methods,  and  the  writers  are  to  be  judged  by 
their  own  standards,  not  by  ours.  Unless,  then,  it  can  be 
shown  that  according  to  their  own  Oriental  ideas  and  methods 
of  constructing  history  and  of  reckoning  time  these  writers 
disagree  with  themselves,  the  charge  of  "discrepancy"  does 
not  fairly  lie  against  them. 

Upon  some  one  of  the  foregoing  principles  are  to  be  explained 
tlie  following  cases,  pertaining  to  various  monarchs. 


*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  1.  439;  also,  compare  pp.  11-14  infra,  where  the  sub- 
ject is  discussed  more  fullj'. 

-  Conciliator,  ii.  86. 

^  Browne,  "  Ordo  Saeclorum,"  p.  221-248,  maintains  that  some  of  the 
reit?ns  arc  enumerated  in  years  current,  others  in  years  complete;  and  that 
the  kings  of  .ludali  reckoned  their  reigns  from  an  epoch  different  from  that 
employed  by  the  kings  of  Israel. 
34 


398  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Ahaziah  of  Judah,  —  age,  twenty-two.  It  was  forty -two. 

2  Kings  viii.  26.  2  Chron.  xxii.  2. 

According  to  the  latter  text,  Ahaziah  must  have  been  two 
years  older  than  his  own  father !  The  perfectly  simple  ex- 
planation adopted  by  Gesenius^  and  most  critics  is,  that  the 
copyist  mistook  one  numeral  letter  for  another  —  3,  20,  for  a,  40. 

Ahaziah's  reign  begun  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Joram,  2  Kings 
ix.  29  ;  in  the  twelfth  year,  2  Kings  viii.  25  (Rashi  says  that, 
on  account  of  Joram's  sickness,^  his  son  Ahaziah  was  associated 
with  him  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Joram's  reign,  but  began  to 
reign  alone  in  the  twelfth  year).  Ahaziah  of  Israel  began  to 
reign  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat,  1  Kings  xxii. 
51 ;  apparently  later,  compare  2  Kings  iii.  1  ;  (the  difference 
probably  arises  from  the  fact  that,  instead  of  fractional,  the 
nearest  whole  numbers,  above  or  below,  are  employed).  Ama- 
ziah's  reign  began  in  the  fourth  year  of  Joash,  2  Kings  xii.  1  ; 
xiii.  10  ;  in  the  second  year,  2  Kings  xiv.  1  (Rawliuson  mentions 
a  double  accession  of  this  Joash;  one  as  co-partner  with  his 
father ;  the  other  two  years  later,  as  sole  king.  Amaziah's 
reign  dated  in  the  fourth  year  from  one  accession ;  in  the 
second  from  the  other).  Asa  had  ten  years  of  peace,  2  Chron. 
xiv.  1;  XV.  19;  at  war  with  Baasha  all  their  days,  1  Kings 
XV.  16,  32  (Asa  reigned  forty-one  years."  Baasha,  beginning 
in  Asa's  third  year,  reigned  twenty-four  years.*  Asa's  ten 
years  of  peace  may  have  occurred  after  Baasha's  death.  Or, 
possibly,  there  may  have  been  ten  years  of  their  contem- 
poraneity, during  which,  though   there  was  "  war "  i.e.  unre- 

'  He  says,  "Gesohichtc  der  Ileb.  Sprache  unci  Schrift,"  p.  174,  "  Nach 
2  Kon.  viii.  2(5  ist  offcnljar  /,u  Icscn  22  (3D  fiir  373)."  Li'jhtfoot  anil  Hen 
Gershon  think  that,  in  Chronicles,  the  whole  reign  of  the  house  of  Oniri 
is  reckoned  in,  to  make  the  forty-two;  thus,  Omri  6  -f-  Ahab  22  -|-  Ahaziah 
2-|-.Ioram  12  =  42.  It  is  a  singuhir  fact  that  this  peculiarly  ral)binic 
method  of  comfiutation  will,  in  a  considerable  nuiTil)er  of  cases,  remove 
apparent  discrei)ancies. —  Sec  Conciliator,  passim. 

2  2  Chron.  xxi.  18, 19. 

■'  1  Kings  XV.  10. 

*  1  Kings  .\v.  88. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  399 

mitting  hostility,  between  them,  there  was  no  actual  resort  to 
arms.^  Critics  agree  that,  in  2  Chron.  xv.  19  and  xvi.  1, 
tliirty-fifth  and  thirty-sixth  years  are  a  copyist's  mistake  for 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth,  or  twenty-fifth  and  twenty-sixth). 
Azariah's  reign  begun  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam. 
2  Kings  XV.  1 ;  in  the  fifteenth  year,  2  Icings  xiv.  2,  17,  23 
(some  say,  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam's  co-partner- 
ship with  liis  father,  but  the  sixteenth  since  he  began  to  reign 
alone.  The  best  critics  maintain  that  13,  27,  has  been  con- 
founded with  VJ,  15).^  Azariah's  reign  ended  m  the  first  year 
of  Pekah,  2  Kings  xv.  2,  27  ;  in  the  second  year  of  Pekah, 
2  Kings  XV,  32  (parts  of  years  are  reckoned  as  whole  years). 

Baasha  died  in  Asa's  twenty-seventh  year,  1  Kings  xv.  33  ; 
in  his  twenty-sixth,  1  Kmgs  xvi.  8  (here,  again,  the  same  prin- 
ciple applies). 

Ela's  reign  two  years,  1  Kings  xvi.  8 ;  one  year,  1  Kings 
xvi.  10  (he  actually  reigned  a  part  of  two  years.  These  parts 
are  called  years). 

Ilezekiah's  age,  twenty-five,  2  Kings  xviii.  2 ;  probably  less, 
2  Kings  xvi.  2  (Ahaz,  dying  at  the  age  of  thirty-six,  would 
hardly  leave  a  son  aged  twenty-five.  Hence,  with  many 
critics,  we  may  assume  a  slight  mistake  in  numeral  letters).** 
Hoshea's  reign  begun  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  that  is, 
the  third  or  fourth  of  Ahaz,  2  Kings  xv.  27,  30,  32 ;  in  the 
twelfth  year  of  Ahaz,  2  Kings  xvii.  1  (the  rabbles  '  say  that 
because  Iloshea  was  tributary  to  the  Assyrians  in  the  early  part 
of  his  reign,  the  first  nhie  years  are  not  reckoned ;  his  reign 
properly  beginning  with  his  independence.  IVIr.  Browne."  admits 
an  interregnum,  or  a  period  of  anarchy,  lasting  eight  years). 

'  See  l?rownc's  Ordo  Sacolorum,  pp.  231-234. 

2  Compare  the  translator's  note  in  Bahr,  p.  151. 

^  Davidson,  Vol.  ii.  p.  22,  and  Ewald,  Vol.  iv.  1G7,  with  tlie  Scptuufrint, 
Syriac,  and  Arabic  of  2  Chron.  xxviii.  1,  raake  Ahaz  twenty-five  years  old 
at  his  aecession. 

■•  Conciliator,  ii.  98,  99. 

"  Ordo  Saecloi-um,  p.  212.  Me  tliinks  that  Isa.  ix.  17-21  refers  to  this 
period  of  anarchy. 


400  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 

Ishbosheth's  reign  two  years,  2  Sam.  ii.  1 0  ;  apparently  some 
seven  years,  2  Sam.  ii.  11;  v.  5  (Ewakl*  and  Keil  maintain 
that,  after  Saul's  death,  five  years  .:were  spent  in  warfare 
against  the  Philistines,  before  Ishbosheth  was  anointed  king 
over  Israel). 

Jehoahaz's  reign  .begun  in  the  twenty-thii*d  year  of  Joash, 
2  Kings  xiii.  1 ;  about  the  nineteenth  year,  2  Kings  x.  36 ;  xii. 

1  (Biihr  thinks  that  5D,  23,  has  been  substituted,  in  the  first 
text,  for  X5,  21).-  His  reign  lasted  seventeen  years,  2  Kings 
xiii.  1 ;  fourteen,  2  Kings  xiii.  10  (we  may  adojjt  the  above 
emendation  ;  or,  with  the  old  expositors,  suppose  that  his  son 
shared  the  throne  the  last  two  or  three  years  of  the  reign). 
Jehoash  began  to  reign  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash, 

2  Kings  xiii.  10;  apparently  in  the  fortieth,  2  Kings  xiii.  1. 
Jehoiachin's  age,  eighteen  years,  2  Kings  xxiv.  8 ;  eight  years, 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  9  (Biihr  tliinks  that  •',  10,  has  dropped  out  of 
the  latter  text).  His  capture  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighth  year, 
2  Kings  xxiv.  12  ;  in  the  seventh  year,  Jer.  lii.  28  (either  a 
slight  mistake  in  numeral  letters,  or  else  a  different  method 
of  counting  regnal  years).  His  deliverance  on  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  the  month,  2  Kings  xxv.  27  ;  on  the  twenty- 
fifth  day,  Jer.  lii.  31  (a  mistake  as  to  a  single  numeral  letter). 
Jehoiakim's  fourth  year  corresponded  to  Nebuchadnezzar's 
first,  Jer.  xxv.  1 ;  xlvi.  2  ;  to  his  second,  Dan.  i.  1  (the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  being  reckoned  by  a  different  method,  might 
correspond  to  the  latter  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  ^rs^,  and  the 
earlier  part  of  his  second  year.  Nebuchadnezzar  set  out  upon 
his  expedition  against  Jerusalem  in  Jelioiakim's  third  year,  Dan. 
i.  1 ;  and  continued  it,  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish,  in  \\\?,  fourth 
year).  Joram  of  Israel, — reign  begun  in  the  second  year  of 
Jehoram  of  Judah,  2  Kings  i.  17  ;  apparently  five  years  before, 

'  Vol.  iii.  113. 

-  Joscplius  a;;recs  with  this  emendation.  Obviously,  upon  the  principles 
of  computation  already  explained,  a  discrepancy  of  one  or  two  years 
arises  and  is  accounted  for  so  easily,  as  to  be  of  no  consequence  whatever. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  401 

2  Kings  viii.  16  (Joram  of  Israel  seems  to  have  begun  to  reign 
in  the  second  year  of  the  Joint  rule  of  Jehoram  and  his  father ; 
Jehoram  of  Judah  began  to  reign  alone  in  the  fifth  year  of 
Joram  of  Israel.^  Or,  with  Mr.  Bullock/  we  may  hold  that 
Jehoram  of  Judah  had  two  or  three  "accessions":  (1)  When 
Jehoshaphat,  on  going  to  the  battle  of  Ramoth-gilead,  about 
the  seventeenth  year  of  his  reign,  iDtrusted  the  regency  to 
Jehoram ;  (2)  when  Jehoshaphat,  in  the  twenty-third  year, 
made  him  joint  king;  (3)  when,  in  the  twenty-fifth  year, 
Jehoshaphat  died.  So  that  the  accession  of  Joram  of  Israel  in 
Jehoshaphat's  eighteenth  year  would  coincide  with  the  second 
year  after  the  first  accession,  and  the  fifth  year  before  the 
second  accession,  of  Jehoram  of  Judah).  Jeroboam  II.  con- 
temporary with  Uzziah  (Azariah)  fourteen  years,  2  Kings  xiv. 
23 ;  XV.  1  ;  thirty-eight  years,  2  Kings  xv.  8  (Bahr,  Thenius, 
and  Wolff  say  that  in  xiv.  23  we  should  read  fifty-one,  s«,  for 
forty-one,  i<-o  ;  'E'Wdldi^&dij?,  fifty-three.  Browne  *  suggests  that 
"  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam,"  xv.  1,  means  tlie 
twenty-seventh  year  before  the  end  of  Jeroboam's  reign.  Most 
critics  think  that  T3,  27,  is  put  here  by  mistake  for  la  15. 
Some*  suppose  an  interregnum  of  eleven  or  twelve  years 
between  the  death  of  Jeroboam  and  the  accession  of  his  sou). 
Josiah's  reformation  in  his  twelfth  year,  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 
3-7  ;  in  the  eighteenth  year,  2  Kings  xxii.  3  ;  xxiii.  4  (what  he 
did  at  the  earlier  period  was  but  the  commencement  and 
preparation  for  what  Jie>  under  the  influence  of  the  newly- 
discovered  book  of  the  law,  carried  out  rigidly  and  thoroughly 
in  his  eighteenth  year).  Jotham's  reign,  twenty  years,  2  Kings 
XV.  30 ;  sixteen  years,  2  Kings  xv.  33  (it  has  been  suggested 
that,  since  Uzziah  was  a  leper,  his  son  Jotham  reigned  in  con- 
nection with  him  four  years.^  Some  Jewish  critics  maintain 
that  "  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham  "  means  the  twentieth  y>-o»j 

>  Sec  Davidson,  Sac.  Herm.,  p.  550.  *  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  il.  1178. 

'  Vol.  iv.  p.  118.  *  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  239,  note. 

'  Ordo  Saeclorum,  loc.  cit.  •  See  Sac.  Herm.,  p.  550. 
84* 


402  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

the  beginning  of  his  reign,  that  is,  the  fourth  year  of  his  suc- 
cessor Ahaz.  Bilhr  thinks  the  thirtieth  verse  an  interpolation). 
Nebuchadnezzar's  nineteenth  year,  Jer.  lii.  12  ;  eighteenth  year, 
Jer.  lii.  29  (either  a  numerical  error,  or  else  different  events 
are  intended).  His  dream  explained  in  the  second  year  of  his 
reign,  Dan.  ii.  1 ;  not  till  he  had  reigned  three  years,  Dan.  i. 
1,  5,  18  (in  i.  1  he  is  styled  "  king  of  Babylon"  by  historical 
anticipation.  He  was  at  the  time  crown  prince  and  commander- 
in-chief  in  behalf  of  his  father  ;  or,  as  Berosus  ^  intimates,  he 
may  have  been  actually  co-regent.  The  "  second  year,"  in  ii.  1, 
dates  from  the  beginning  of  his  real  reign.  Besides,  as  Raw- 
linson  ^  observes,  the  "  three  years  "  of  Daniel's  training  means, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  usage,  "  no  more  than  one  whole  year, 
and  parts,  however  small,  of  two  other  years)."  Omri's  reign 
began  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Asa,  1  Kings  xvi.  15  ;  in 
the  thirty-first  year,  1  Kings  xvi.  23  (he  began,  at  the  first 
date  to  reign  over  one  half  of  Israel,  at  the  second  date  to 
reign  over  the  «fAo/e).*  Pekah's  reign  twenty  years,  2' Kings 
XV.  27 ;  about  thirty,  2  Kings  xv.  32,  33 ;  xvii.  1  (Bahr  thinks 
that  3,  20,  has  been  substituted  improperly  for  ^,  30.  Oppert 
and  Lenormant  *  assert,  upon  the  authority  of  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions, that  Pekah's  reign  was  interrupted  above  seven  years, 
he  being  dethro'ned  about  B.C.  742  by  a  second  Menahem,  and 
re-instated  by  another  revolution  about  B.C.  733.  The  thirty 
years  date  from  his  first  inauguration,  while  his  actual  reign 
was  twenty  years).     As  to  Saul's  reign,  1  Sam.  xiii.  1,  2,  the 


■  He  says  that  the  father  "  conferred  upon  his  son  Nel)ufhadnezzar,  now 
a  man,  some  share  of  the  government."  See  Ilengstenberj^'s  Genuine- 
ness of  Daniel,  p.  50. 

*  Historical  Illustrations,  pp.  1G3,  169  (American  edition). 
^  1  Kinjrs  xvi.  21,  22. 

*  Jlanual  of  Ancient  History  of  the  East,  i.  172  (Amer.  edition).  See  a 
summ.iry  of  re;rnal  discrepancies  in  Movers'  Kritische  llntcrsuchun^ren 
iilier  die  biblischc  Chronik,  pp.  54,  55,  no-c  (o).  For  tabular  and  syn- 
cln'onistic  lists  of  the  kiniis  of  .Indah  and  Israel,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  various  Commentaries  and  Bible  Dictionaries, 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  403 

best  critics  agi*ee  that  some  numeral  letter  has  dropped  out  in 

both  verses. 

Ai  destroyed  at  a  certain  time.  Still  inhabited. 

Josh.  viii.  28.  Neh.  vii.  32. 

Parker  ^ :  "It  may  have  been  rebuilt  in  the  interval." 

Amalekites  utterly  destroyed.  Overthrown  at  a  later  period. 

1  Sam.  XV.  7,  8.  1  Sam.  xxx.  1, 17. 

The    Hebrew  expression  in    the  first   passage   is,  literally, 

"  devoted  to  destruction",  and  means   no  more  than  that   be 

destroj/ed  all  whom  he  caught.     The  words  ''  all  the  people " 

are  to  be  interpreted,  as  Thenius  ^  says,  "  with  a  restriction," 

and  not  to  be   pressed  so  as  to  preclude  the  idea  that  some 

escaped,  who,  twenty  years  later,  gathering  a  band  of  their 

Bedouin  neighbors,  made  a  predatory  excursion  against  Ziglag. 

Bethel  and  Gezer  conquered.  Apparently  not  till  later. 

Josh.  xii.  12,  16.  Judg.  i.  22-25,  29. 

Some  critics"  think  that  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  Judg.  i.-ii.  6 

refers  to  events  previous  to  the  death  of  Joshua.     Hence  the 

above  passages  would  relate  to  substantially  the  same  period, 

and  tliere  would  be  no  collision.     Otherwise,  we  may  adopt 

the  solution  of  the  difficulty  indicated  a  little  further  on. 

Canaan  conquered  speedily.  Conquest  delayed. 

Josh.  X.  42.  Josh.  xi.  18. 

The  first  text  refers  especially  to  the  southern  part  of  Pal- 
estine, which  was  conquered  in  a  single  campaign  ;  the  second 
relates  to  the  northern  part,  the  conquest  of  which  occupied  a 
longer  period. 

As  to  the  fact  that  the  Canaan  ites  were  to  be  destroyed 
quickly  ("maljar"),  Deut.  ix.  3;  yet  not  at  once  (''mahar"), 
Deut.  vii.  22,  the  Hebrew  term  is  employed  in  these  two  cases 

'  De  Wctte's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  177,  note. 

*  Die  IJiichcr  Samuels,  p.  08. 

"  Compare  Ijil).  Com.  Introd.,  to  Judfres,  pp.  123-125.  On  this  hypothe- 
sis, wc  must  read  in  Judjr.  i.  1,  "after  the  death  of  Moses,"  etc.  This 
seems  plausible,  since  the  death  of  Joi^hua  is  related  in  ii.  8,  9. 


404  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

in  a  relative  sense.  The  overthrow  by  the  Israelites  of  "  seven 
nations  greater  and  mightier  "  than  they,  was,  in  respect  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  work,  done  "quickly";  but,  with  reference 
to  the  fact  that  the  rapiditrj  of  their  conquest  was  graduated  to 
the  rate  of  their  actual  occupation,  so  that  the  depopulated  land 
was  not  left  to  become  the  haunt  of  wUd  beasts,  it  was  not  done 
"  at  once,"  that  is,  not  too  suddenly. 

As  to  those  passages  which  seem  to  represent  the  subjugation 
of  Canaan  and  the  extirpation  of  its  inhabitants  as  already 
effected  and  comj^lete,  in  contrast  with  others  which  speak  of 
''  very  much  land  "  as  still  in  possession  of  the  native  inhabitants 
(compare  Josh.  xi.  16,  17,  23  ;  xii.  7,  8  and  xiii.  1  ;  xvii.  14; 
xxiii.  5)  it  has  been  suggested"  (1)  that  in  the  former  passages 
the  writer  speaks  from  the  theocratic  point  of  view,  intimating 
that  everything  has  been  done  on  the  part  of  God,  it  only  re- 
maining for  the  Israelites  to  faithfully  execute  their  part  of 
the  work ;  (2)  that  ''  territory  was  undoubtedly  overrun  by 
Joshua  at  the  first  onset  which  was  afterwards  recovered  by 
the  Canaanites,  and  only  again  and  finally  wrested  from  them 
at  a  subsequent,  sometimes  a  long  subsequent,  date." 

Cities  smitten  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  period. 

Josh.  xii.  10-23.  Josh.  xv.  63;  xvii.  12;  Judg.  i.  22,  29. 

Some  make  a  distinction  between  smiting  the  kings  and  cap- 
turing their  cities  in  the  present  instance.  But  all  such  cases 
as  these  may  be  explained  by  the  supposition  that,  in  tlie 
irreguhir  warfare  which  the  Israelites  waged,  the  Canaanites 
which  escaped  at  the  conquest  of  the  cities  would,"  as  soon  as 
the  attention  of  the  victors  was  turned  in  another  direction, 
return  and  re-occupy  their  former  haunts.  Sc^n  they  would 
rebuUd  and  fortify  these  cities,  and  in  process  of  time  must  be 
again  dislodged  by  armed  force.  Hence  it  would  happen  that 
some  of  the  Canaanite  cities  would  be  conquered  several  times 
over  by  the  Israelites,  under  Joshua,  Caleb,  and  other  leaders. 

'  See  Bible  Com.,  lutrod.  to  Josh.  p.  12;  also,  p.  376  infra. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  405 

Ewakl,'  in  his  sketch  of  the  "  never-ending  hostilities  and 
counter-hostilities  of  those  early  times,"  hits  the  mark  precisely. 
Having  pointed  out  the  inferiority  of  the  Hebrews  in  all  the 
practical  arts,  including  even  arms  and  military  tactics,  and 
their  superiority  to  the  Canaanites  in  respect  to  martial  courage, 
he  adds :  "•  With  these  striking  differences,  the  warlike  daring 
of  the  Hebrews  might  easily  achieve  most  extraordinary  mo- 
mentary successes,  and  yet  their  first  campaigns  could  not  be 
much  more  than  what  the  Arabs  in  all  three  continents  called 
'  alghars,'  or  rather  (since  the  Hebrews  had  no  cavalry)  '  razzias,' 
that  is,  sudden  raids,  overpowering  the  land  for  the  moment, 
rather  than  permanently  subduing  it ;  and  when  the  camp  of 
the  invaders  was  remote,  the  thick  ranks  of  the  former  in- 
habitants, regardless  of  their  promised  submission,  soon  closed 
again  behind  their  invaders."  In  these  characteristically  graphic 
words  of  the  great  critic,  we  have  the  key  to  such  cases  of 
repeated  conquest  as  are  subjoined.  Debir  conquered,  .Josh.  x. 
30,  39  and  .Josh.  xv.  15-17;  Judg.  i.  11-13.  Dor  and 
Taanach,  Josh.  xii.  21,  23  and  Judg.  i.  27.  Hazor,  Josh.  xi. 
1,  10  and  Judg.  iv.  24.  Hebron,  —  king,  Josh.  x.  23,  26  and 
36,37  (Bleek^  suggests  that  the  latter  passage  may  refer  to  a 
successor  of  the  king  mentioned  in  the  former.  Konig^  thinks 
that  there  were  two  conquests  of  Hebron).  Ilormah,  Num. 
xxi.  3  and  Josh.  xii.  14;  Judg.  i.  17  (the  name  '•  liormah," 
denoting  accursed,,  or  devoted  to  destruction,  may  have  been 
applied  to  more  than  one  place.*  Or,  the  vow  or  ban  made  by 
Moses  may  not  have  been  fully  carried  out  till  the  time  of 
Joshua.  Kurtz '  suggests  that  the  city  may  not  have  been  con- 
quered at  the  same  time  with  its  king,  or  that  Hormah  may  have 

1  History  of  Israel,  ii.  263. 

^  Iiitrod.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  349.  Several  other  passajjcs  referring  to  Hebron, 
Josh.  xi.  21;  xiv.  12,  13;  Jud^.  i.  9-11,  indicate  its  varyinj^  fortunes. 

*  Alttestamentliche  Studien,  i.  22. 

*  Some  have  reckoned  three  places  with  this  name.  Num.  xiv.  45  may 
mean,  unto  the  place  now  known  as  Ilormah. 

'  Vol.  iii.  335. 


406  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

been  recaptured  by  the  Canaan  ites,  and  only  definitively  con- 
quered and  placed  under  the  ban  at  the  time  indicated  in  Judg. 
i.  17).  Jebus  or  Jerusalem,  Josh.  xii.  10 ;  Judg.  i.  8  and  Josh. 
XV.  63;  .Judg.  i.  21  (Jebus  was  the  stronghold  or  fortress  "of 
extraordinary  strength,"  while  Jerusalem  was  the  name  of  the 
adjacent  city.  The  latter,  with  its  king,  was  captured  early ;  the 
former  held  out  till  the  time  of  David.  So  Josephus,^  and  other 
authorities).  Jericho,  Josh.  vi.  24,  2G  and  Judg.  i.  16;  iii.  lo  ; 
2  Sam.  X.  5  (Bertheau,  Knobel,  and  Le  Clerc  maintain  that 
two  different  places  are  meant.  Winer  thinks  that  Joshua's 
imprecation  was  not  meant  to  preclude  iidiabiting  the  city 
again,  but  referred  to  the  rebuilding  of  its  fortifications.  So 
that,  as  an  unwalled  village,  it  may  have  been  re-inhabited 
shortly  after  its  conquest  by  Joshua).  Laish,  Josh.  xix.  47 
and  Judg.  xviii.  27,  28.  Midianites  overthrown.  Num.  xxxi. 
10  and  .Judg.  vi.  33;  viii.  10-12  (it  is  not  said  in  Numbers 
that  all  the  JMidianites  were  slain  ;  some  doubtless  escaped.  In 
some  two  hundred  years  this  remnant  would  become  sufficiently 
formidable,  aided  by  their  allies,  "  the  Amalekites  and  the 
children  of  the  east,"  to  harass  northern  and  eastern  Israel). 
AVe  thus  see  that  the  theory  of  repeated  conquests  of  the  same 
place  or  people  meets  the  exigencies  of  the  case  satisfactorily. 

Announcement  made  to  Mary.  At  a  different  time  to  Joseph. 

Luke  i.  26-37.  Matt.  i.  20. 

Strauss  and    Bruno  Bauer  maintain   that  the  two  accounts 

are  contradictory.     But  Mary  did  not  at  once  tell  Joseph  of 

the  message  she  had  received,  because,  j^rs^  she  had  nothing  to 

confess,  and  it  was  not  suitable  to  sj^eak  of  the  matter  in  a  tone 

of  triumph  ;  and,  secondly,  she  knew  that  her  own  word  alone 

would  not  satisfy  Joseph,  hence  she  wisely  left  it  to  God  to 

put  the  mind  of  her  husliand  at  rest  in  regard  to  the  matter.''' 

Tliis  "  pairing  of  visions,"  in  order  to  dispose  two  persons  for 

'  Ant.  V.  2,2.     Compare  ICwakJ,  Ilavcmick,  and  Stanley. 
-  Sec,  on  this  point,  Kbranl,  pp.  167-171;  also,  Wordsworth,  IJeplies  to 
Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  469. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  407 

co-operation  in  important  and  worthy  matters,  finds  a  parallel 

in  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  Peter,  and  Saul  and  Ananias.^ 

Apostles  called  at  one  time.  At  a  different  time. 

John  i.  35-43.  Matt.  iv.  18-22;  Mark  i.  16-20;  Luke  v.  1-11. 

John    describes  the   first  interview  of   our    Lord   with  the 

disciples  mentioned.     They   "  abode  with   him  that  day,"  but 

afterward  returned  for  a  while  to  their  ordinary  employment. 

Later,  at  the  time  indicated  in  the  other  passages,  they  were 

called  to  the  apostolic  office,  and  gave  up  their  former  mode  of 

life.     Ebrard  ^  has  shown  that  this  is  the  correct  explanation  ; 

also,  that  the  commission  of  the  "  twelve  "  in  Matt,  x.,  was  quite 

distinct  from  that  of  the  ''  seventy,"  as  recorded  in  Luke  x. ;  the 

former  being  of  a  permanent,  the  latter  of  a  temporary,  nature. 

Ark  made  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  time. 

Deut.  X.  3-5.  Ex.  xxv.  10;  xxxv.  12;  xxxvii.  1. 

Possibly  the  ark  mentioned  in  the  first  passage  was  a  tem- 
porary one  ;  or  Moses  may  have  ordered  its  construction  before 
he  went  upon  Sinai,  and  so  made  it  per  Bezaleel.  But  a 
better  explanation  is,  that  Moses  here,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
"  connects  transactions  closely  related  to  each  other  and  to  his 
purpose,  without  regard  to  the  order  of  occurrence."  The  style 
of  the  Hebrew  historians,  as  Le  Clerc  observes,  is  not  to  be 
"  tried  by  the  rules  of  rhetoricians."  It  is  to  their  disregard 
of  chronological  order,  to  the  arranging  of  their  materials 
topically,  rather  than  consecutively,  —  a  method  of  composition 
entirely  in  keeping  with  their  simplicity  of  thought  and  diction, 
—  that  we  must  attribute  numerous  minor  discrepancies  like 
the  following:  Christ  conveyed  into  the  mountain  at  the  third 
temptation,  Matt.  iv.  8 ;  at  the  second,  Luke  iv.  5  (Luke  does 
not  follow  the  order  of  time  here ;  nor  does  he  claim  to  do 
so).  Ilis  preaching  began  be/ore  John's  imprisonment,  John 
iii.  2,  22,  24;  from  that  epoch.  Matt.  iv.  12,  17;  Mark  i.  14 
(the   meaning   may  be,  from  that  time  began   to  preach  in 

'  Sec  Acts  X.  :l,  LS,  1.5,  nmi  ix.  6,  10-16. 
^  Gospel  History,  sections  14,  51,  and  70. 


408  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Galilee,  or  to  preach  the  nearness  of  the  "  kiugdom  of  heaven  "). 
Creation,  —  one  order,  Gen.  i.  11-27;  another  order,  Gen.  ii. 
4—7,  9,  19-22  (it  is  conceded  by  the  best  authorities^  that 
there  is  a  "  general  correspondence "  between  the  biblical 
account  of  creation  and  the  deductions  of  geological  science. 
When  we  compare  the  statements  of  Gen.  i.  with  those  of  the 
succeeding  chapter,  we  discover  several  disagreements  with 
respect  to  the  order  of  events.  Thus,  —  to  give  one  of  the 
half-dozen  similar  instances  adduced  by  rationalistic  critics, — 
in  the  first  chapter,  the  man  and  woman  seem  to  be  represented 
as  created  together,  after  the  lower  animals ;  in  the  second 
chapter  the  man  appears  to  be  created  first,  then  the  beasts, 
lastly  the  woman. 

Now,  these  differences  arise  simply  from  the  condensation 
of  the  narrative  in  the  first  chapter,  and  from  the  disregard  of 
chronological  order  in  the  second.  In  the  first,  the  sacred 
historian  gives  a  general,  yet  concise,  account  of  the  six  days' 
work ;  in  the  second  chapter  he  recapitulates,  and,  without  fol- 
lowing the  order  of  time,  gives  some  additional  details.  As 
Kalisch  has  well  said, "  The  writer's  end  is  the  history  of  man's 
fall.  The  serpent  occasions,  the  wife  shares  it ;  it  is  therefore 
necessary  to  introduce  the  creation  of  the  animals  and  of 
woman."  ^ 

The  narrative  in  the  second  chapter  is  "  wholly  unchrono- 
logical."  the  near  and  the  remote  being  brought  together  without 
regard  to  the  order  of  time.  In  other  words,  everything  in 
this  supplementary  account,  is  viewed  in  its  relation  to  man  ; 
hence  he  is  here  placed  foremost  according  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Aristotelian  maxim :  The  posterior  in  appearance,  the  prior  in 
idea),^  Feast  of  unleavened  bread  instituted  before  the  exode, 
Ex.  xii.  15  ;  afterwards  at  Succoth,  Ex.  xiii.  3  (the  second  text 

'  Such  as  Af;assiz,  Dana,  and  Guvot.     See  Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson's  Man  in 
Genesis  and  in  (Jcoloj,'y,  p.  19.     Also,  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  161. 
"  Commentary  on  Genesis,  p.  ll.'J;  see,  also,  p.  82. 
*  See  Lange  on  Genesis,  pp.  200-202. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  409 

is  a  mere  incidental  repetition  of  the  command).  Israelites 
already  at  Sinai,  Ex.  xviii.  5 ;  not  till  later,  Ex.  xix.  2  (the 
meeting  with  Jethro  seems  related  by  anticipation,  in  order  to 
clear  the  way  for  an  uninterrupted  account  of  the  meeting  with 
Jehovah  at  Sinai).  John  acquainted  with  Jesus  previous  to 
the  baptism,  Matt  iii.  14;  not  till  that  epoch,  John  i.  33  (the 
recognition  by  John,  at  the  first  glance,  may  have  been  due  not 
to  any  previous  acquaintance  with  Jesus,  but  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  been  forewarned  that  the  Messiah  was  about  to  appear, 
and  felt  an  intuitive,  irresistible  conviction  '  that  this  was  He). 
Levites  set  apart  during  the  sojourn  at  Sinai,  Num.  iii.  6 ;  viii. 
14;  apparently  not  till  later,  Deut.  x.  6-8  (Rashi,^  Hengsten- 
berg,'  and  others  say  that  vs.  6  and  7  of  Deut.  x.  are  paren- 
thetical ;  the  words  "  at  that  time,",  in  vs.  8,  referring  back  to 
the  events  described  in  the  first  five  verses).  Persons  sealed 
at  a  given  time,  Neh.  x.  1-27  ;  their  children  supposed  to  have 
lived  a  century  earlier,  Ezra  ii.  1-39  ;  Neh.  vii.  7-42  (the 
eighteen  or  more  "  coincident  names "  *  in  these  lists  do  not 
absolutely  prove  the  identity  of  the  persons.  Rawlinson  * 
maintains  that  the  names  in  the  first  passage  are  "not  personal, 
but  designate  families").  Priests  consecrated  at  Mount  Sinai, 
Ex.  xix.  22  ;  not  till  later,  Ex.  xxviii.  1  (the  Israelites  were 
familiar,  from  the  beginning,  with  the  ideas  of  priesthood  and 
sacrifice.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  had  priests  and 
forms  of  worship  and  sacrifice  previous  to  the  giving  of  the 
law  and  the  consecration  of  the  Levites.  Jewish  writers  say 
that  in  that  early  time  the  first-born  or  the  lieads  of  families 
performed  priestly  service.  This  agrees  well  with  the  state- 
ment that  Moses  sent ''  young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel " 
to  offer  sacrifice  upon  a  certain  occasion).® 

»  Sec  Ebrard,  pp.  196,  197. 
«  Conciliator,  i.  246. 
»  Gen.  of  Pent.,  ii.  352. 
<  Davidson,  Introij.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  138. 
'  Bible  Com.  on  Neh.  x.  1-28. 

•  See  Ex.  xxiv.  5.    Compare,  however,  Kurtz,  ii.  834-337;  iii.  142,  143. 
35 


410  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

Beersheba  named  by  Abraham.  Named  later  by  Isaac. 

Gen.  xxi.  31.  Gen.  xxvi.  33. 

To  the  rationalistic  objection  that  "  identical  names  of  places 
are  not  imposed  twice,"  we  may  reply,  in  general,  that  it  is 
"  in  fiill  accordance  with  the  genius  of  the  Oriental  languages 
and  the  literary  tastes  of  the  people  "  to  suppose  that  a  name 
may  be  renewed ;  in  other  words,  that  a  new  meaning  and 
signijicancy  may  be  attached  to  an  old  name}  This  fact 
sweeps  away  a  host  of  objections  urged  against  this  and  similar 
cases. 

The  whole  series  of  events  served  to  recall  to  Isaac's  mind 
the  former  name  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it, 
hence  he  renewed  it.  From  xxvi.  15,  18  we  learn  that  all  the 
wells  dug  by  Abraham  had  been  filled  with  earth  by  the 
Pliilistines ,  but  that  Isaac  re-opened  them,  and  called  them  by 
the  old  familiar  names.  This  would  seem  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion of  the  case  before  us. 

In  much  the  same  way  the  following  examples  of  a  twofold 
naming  are  to  be  solved.  Bethel  named  at  one  time.  Gen. 
xxviii.  19;  at  a  later  time.  Gen.  xxxv.  15  (at  the  first  time 
Jacob  made  a  vow  that,  if  God  would  bless  and  keep  him  till 
his  return,  the  pillar  which  he  had  set  up  should  be  "  God's 
house."  ^  Upon  his  return,  in  view  of  the  abundant  blessings 
which  he  had  received,  he  performed  his  vow,^  changing  the 
ideal  to  an  actual  Bethel,  and  thus  emphasizing  and  confirming 
the  original  name).  Dan  named,  Gen.  xiv.  14 ;  Deut.  xxxiv. 
1  and  Josh.  xix.  47;  Judg.  xviii.  29  (many  commentators  — 
Deyling,  Eiclihorn,  Havernick,  Ilengstenberg,  Jahn,  Kalisch, 
Keil,  Lange,  Quarry,  Zeller,  and  otliers  —  think  that  in  Genesis 
another  town  is  intended,  that  commonly  termed  "  Dan-jaan." 
Possibly  the  city  may  have  had  two  names  in  ancient  times  — 

'  This  is  tlic  testimony  of  a  sclioliir  tliorouu:lily  acquainted  with  Oriental 
manners  and  customs,  Prof.  .1.  L.  I'orter,  in  Kitto's  Biljlical  Cyclopaedia, 
li.  132  (latest  edition). 

-'  Gen.  xxviii.  IQ-'ll. 

'  Gen.  xxxv.  14,  15. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  411 

Laish  (or  Leshem)  and  Dan  ;  one  of  these  being  more  used  at 
one  time,  the  other  at  another.*  Le  CI  ere  suggests  that  the 
town  was  originally  called  Laish,  and  the  fountain  Dan,  i.e. 
judge ;  but  that  the  Danites  gave  the  name  of  the  fountain, 
which  corresponded  with  that  of  their  own  tribe,  to  the  city,  as 
a  substitute  for  its  former  name).  Ilavoth-jair  named,  Num. 
xxxii.  41  ;  Deut.  iii.  4,  14  and  Judg.  x.  3,  4  (the  old  name 
may  have  acquired  new  significance  through  the  second  Jair ; 
or,  as  Kurtz  ^  suggests,  the  entire  district  may  have  been  lost 
by  the  family  during  the  confusion  of  the  time  of  the  Judges, 
and  a  portion,  thirty  of  the  sixty  cities,^  regained  and  re-named 
by  the  second  Jair).  Israel  named  at  one  time.  Gen.  xxxii. 
28;  at  a  different  and  later  time,  Gen.  xxxy.  10  (many  critics 
regard  the  latter  instance  simply  as  a  ratification  and  confirma- 
tion of  the  former  meaning.  Murphy  suggests  that  in  the 
interval  Jacob's  spiritual  life  had  been  declining,  and  that  its 
renewal  is  aptly  intimated  and  expressed  by  the  renewal  of  his 
name). 

Census  made  at  one  time.  At  another  time. 

Ex.  xxxviii.  26.  Num.  i.  46. 

"We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  census  of  the  second  text 
was  a  military  enrolment,  but  was  probably  based  upon  the 
registration  accompanying  the  collection  of  offerings  mentioned 
in  Exodus. 

The  hypothesis  that  similar  events  occur  at  different  times 
affords  a  ready  solution  of  the  following  cases ;  Christ  anointed 
at  one  time.  Matt.  xxvi.  7  ;  John  xii.  3  ;  at  another  time,  Luke 
vii.  37,  38  (the  best  critics  hold  that  the  anointing  in  the  first 
two  passages  was  quite  distinct  from  that  mentioned  by  Luke). 
David  anointed  at  one  time,  1  Sam.  xvi.  13  ;  at  another,  2  Sam. 
ii.  4 ;  upon  a  third  occasion,  2  Sum.  v.  3  (the  first  was  a  private, 
prophetic  anointing ;  by  the  second  he  was  publicly  recognized 
as  king  over  Judah ;  by  the  third,  as  king  over  both  Judah  and 

>  Kitto,  i.  61-1.  -  Vol.  iii.  4G9,  470. 

■'  Comp.  Jnii'T  X.  4;  1  Cliron.  ii.  'I'l,  io. 


'112  DISCREPANCIES  OP  TUE  BIBLE. 

Israel).     Land   assigned,  Josh.  xiv.  5  and   xviii.  6    (chapters 

xiv.-xix.  contain  an  account  of  the  division  of  the  laud ;  vs. 

1—5  of  the  fourteenth  chapter  form  a  preface  to  the  narrative, 

and  state  the  result  by  anticipation).     Officers  appointed,  Ex. 

xviii.  25  and  Num.  xi.  16  (two  entirely  distinct  transactions). 

Proverb,  —  origin,   1    Sam.   x.    12  and  1   Sam.  xix.  24   (the 

recurrence  of  the  same  circumstance  afforded  fresh  ground  for 

the  "  proverb").     Saul's  anointing,  1  Sam.  x.  1  and  xi.  14,  15; 

xii.  3.     Solomon's  anointing,  1  Kings  i.  39  and  1  Chron.  xxix. 

22   (in  both  the   last  cases  there  was  need  of    a  formal  and 

supplementary  investiture    with    authority  before    all    Israel). 

Spices  prepared  after  the  Sabbath,  Mark  xvi.  1 ;  on  the  day 

preceding  it,  Luke  xxiii.  56  (Ebrard^  gives  a  rendering  of  the 

latter  text  which  obviates  the  difficulty.     Otherwise,  one  of  the 

two  parties  of  women  may  have  made  a  purchase  before,  the 

other    after,  the  Sabbath.     Or,  the    same    persons  may  have 

bought  a  part  of  the  spices  at  one  time,  the  remainder  at  the 

other  time).     Temple  furniture    removed,  2  Kings  xxiv.  13; 

XXV.  13-17    and   Dan.  i.  2  (the  temple  was   pillaged   several 

times).     Wives  repudiated,  Ezra  x.  3-17  and  Neh.  xiii.  23-30 

(the  evil  of  intermarriage  with  heathen  women  was  repressed 

by  Ezra,  but  some  twenty-five  years  later  again  required  severe 

measm'cs).     Year, —  beginning,  in  spring-time,  Ex.  xii.  2  ;  in 

harvest,  Ex.  xxiii.  16  (the  first  passage  refers  to  the  sacred, 

the  second  to  the  secular  year).^ 

Christ  crucified  at  the  third  hour.  About  the  sixth  hour. 

Mark  xv.  25.  John  xix.  14-18. 

There    are    three    leading   explanations    of    this  case.     1st. 

That  the  two  evangelists  give  the  extreme  limits  of  time, — 

!Mark  referring  to  the  beginning  of  the  preparations,  and  John 

pointing  to  the  completion  of  the  di-eadful  tragedy.     The  words 

of  the  former,  "  It  was  the  third  liour,"  may  denote  indefinitely 

that  fhe  third  hour  was  past ;  while  the  ])hraseology  in  John, 

"  about    the    sixth    hour,"  may    mean  simj)ly  tliat  it  was  ap- 

'  Gospel  llislory,  pp.  445,  440.  "  Conciliator,  i.  )26-129. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  413 

proacMng  the  sixth  hour,  So  Ewald,'  apparently.  2cl.  John, 
writing  in  Asia  Minor,  may  have  used  the  Roman  official  mode 
of  computation,  reckoning  from  midnight,  so  that  the  "  sixth 
hour  "  would  be  6  a.m.  From  this  time  to  9  a.m.  (the  "  third 
hour,"  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning)  was  occupied  by  the 
preliminaries,  and  by  the  passage  of  the  procession  forth  to 
Golgotha.  This  is  the  view  of  Ebrard,  Mr.  Garden,^  Gardiner, 
Hug,  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Townson,  Wieseler,  Wordsworth, 
and  others.  3d.  A  copyist's  mistake,  in  John,  of  /",  3,  for  ?',  6. 
So  Alford  hesitatingly,  Bengel,  Beza,  Eusebius,  Petavius, 
Robinson,  and  Theophylact.  Meyer  follows  John's  reckomng, 
leaving  the  difficulty  unsolved. 

Christ's  entombment  three  clays  and  nights.  A  less  time. 

Matt.  xii.  40.  Buried  Friday;  rose  on  Sunday. 

"We   have   elsewhere   called   attention  to  the  fact  that  the 

Orientals  reckon  any  part  of  a  day  as  a  whole  day.     In  the 

case  before  us,  one  whole  and  two  parts  of  a  day,  together  with 

two  nights,  are  popularly  styled  "  three  days  and  three  nights." 

This  Oriental  manner  of  designating  intervals  of  time  is  found 

in  other  portions  of  scripture,^  and  obtains  in  modern  tirnes. 

Dr.  Robinson  *   found,  in  his  own  case,  that  "  five   days "  of 

quarantine   really  meant  "  only  three  whole  days   and   small 

portions  of  two  others." 

Christ's  infancy,  —  order  of  events.  A  different  order. 

Matt.  ii.  1-23.  Luke  ii.  4-39. 

It  is   objected   by  Strauss''  and   his   school   that   the   two 

accounts  are  incompatible,  since  Matthew  omits  the  residence 

at    Nazareth    before    the    nativity,    the    circumstances    wliich 

brought  Joseph  and  ]\Iary  to  Bethlehem,  and  the  presentation 

in  the  temple ;  while  Luke  does  not  mention  the  visit  of  the 

Magi,  the  murder  of  the  innocents,  nor  the  flight  to  Egypt. 

'  Life  of  Christ,  p.  325.  »   Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1102 

^  Compare  1  Sam.  xxx.  12,  13.  *  Later  Bib.  Res.  pp.  625,  626. 

*  New  Life  of  Jesus,  ii.  91.    Sec,  also,  Schlcicrmachcr,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp. 
46,  48  (Thirlwall's  translation). 
35* 


414  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

To  this  we  reply  that  the  argument  from  the  silence  of  an 
author  amounts  to  very  little.  That  particular  aspect  of  the 
case  which  he  wished  to  present,  or  the  knowledge  already 
possessed  by  those  to  whom  he  was  writing,  might  render  it 
inexpedient  or  suj^erfluous  for  liim  to  mention  all  the  circum- 
stances, as  otherwise  he  would  have  done. 

In  the  case  before  us,  the  following  is  the  probable  order  of 
events :  Journey  of  Joseph  and  Mary  from  Nazareth  to  Beth- 
lehem ;  birth  of  the  child ;  presentation  in  the  Temjile ;  visit 
of  the  Magi ;  flight  of  the  family  to  Egypt ;  return  and  settle- 
ment at  Nazareth.' 

Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Patritius  ^  maintain  that,  after 
the  presentation  in  the  Temple,  Joseph  and  Mary  returned  to 
Nazareth  (Luke  ii.  39),  and,  having  arranged  their  affairs 
there,  came  back  to  Bethlehem  (which  must  have  possessed 
very  strong  attractions  for  them),  with  a  view  to  make  the 
latter  place  their  home.  Wordsworth  thinks  they  came  to 
Bethlehem  the  second  time  on  the  occasion  of  one  of  the  great 
annual  feasts.  At  this  time  they  received  the  Magi  not  in  a 
stable,  but  in  a  "house"  (Matt.  ii.  11),  and  from  this  city  they 
fled  into  Egypt.  Ebrard  ^  satisfactorily  explains  the  omission 
of  some  circumstances  by  one  evangelist,  and  of  others  by  the 
other. 

Daniel  continued  till  first  year  of  Cyrus.  Till  his  third  year. 

Dan.  i.  21.  Dan.  x.  1. 

In  the  first  text,  "  continued  "  means  either  that  he  retained 
his  position,  or  better  that  he  continued  in  Babylon,  till  that 
epoch,  at  which  time  the  exiles  received  permission  to  return. 
So  Bleek,  Davidson,  and  Michaelis.  Hengstenberg  *  takes  the 
passage  as  implying  that  Daniel  lived  to  see  that  glorious  epoch, 
but  not  at  all  that  he  died  at  that  time. 


*  So  Robinson,  Gardiner,  Wicsclcr,  and  others. 

*  Kitto,  ii.  5-18,  note;  Andrews'  Life  of  our  Lord,  pp.  8i-89. 
»  Gospel  History,  pp.  180-189. 

*  Gen.  of  Daniel,  pp.  54-56. 


HISTORICAL   DISCRE]PANCIES.  415 

Deluge,  —  (duration  150  daya.  Lasted  but  40  dai/s. 

Gen.  vii.  24;  viii.  3.  Gen.  vii.  4,  12, 17. 

As  Knohel  ^  says,  the  rain  continued  dimng  the  entire  one 
hundred  and  fifty  days,  of  which  the  forty  form  a  part ;  yet  we 
must  distinguish  its  more  moderated  continuance  from  the  first 
forty  days'  storm.  Moreover,  the  subsidence  or  sinking  of  a 
portion  of  the  earth's  surface,  denoted  by  the  "  breaking  uj)  of 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,"  ^  doubtless  continued  also.  The 
one  hundred  and  fifty  days  brmg  us  down  from  the  seventeenth 
day  of  the  second  month,  the  beginning  of  the  rain,  to  the  seven- 
teenth day  of  the  seventh  month,  when  the  ark  rested  upon  the 
mountain.  On  the  first  day  of  the  tenth  month  the  summits 
of  the  mountains  were  visible.  Then  forty  days  (viii.  6)  bring 
us  to  the  tenth  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  when  Noah  opened 
the  window  of  the  ark,  and  sent  forth  the  raven.  Between 
this  event  and  the  first  sending  of  the  dove  probably  seven 
days  intervened  (compare  vs.  7  and  8 ;  also,  "  other  seven 
days,"  in  vs.  10).  These,  with  the  two  "  sevens  "  mentioned  in 
vs.  10  and  12,  make  twenty-one  days,  which  bring  us  to  the  six 
hundred  and  first  year,  first  month,  first  day,  when  the  "  face  of 
the  ground  was  dry,"^  that  is,  when  the  water  had  disappeared. 
On  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  the  second  month  the  nmd  had 
di'ied,  so  that  it  was  suitable  for  Noah  and  his  family  to  go 
forth.''  This  suggestion  removes  the  supposed  contradiction 
that  the  earth  became  dry  at  two  different  times. 

Drought,  —  duration  three  years.  Apparently  three  and  a  half. 

1  Kings  xvii.  1 ;  xviii.  1.  Luke  iv.  25;  James  v.  17. 

The  "  third  year "  may  be  reckoned  from  the  time  when 

Elijah  began  his  sojourn  with  the  widow  of  Zarephatli ;  or,  the 

drought  begvui  six  months  lx;fore  the  famine  did — the  last  two 

texts  referring  to  the  drought. 

Esau  settled  in  Seir,  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  period. 

Gen.  xxxii.  3.  Gen.  xxxvi.  6,  8. 

The  writer,  in  tlie  first  passage,  speaks  of  the  "  country  of 
*  Die  Genesis,  p.  85.  ^  Chap.  vii.  11.  *  viii.  13.  *  viii.  14. 


41G  DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 

Edom "  by  anticipation.  Probably  Esau,  at  the  time  alluded 
to,  was  sojourning  temporarily  in  Seir  ;  or  he  may  have  been 
there  on  a  warlike  expedition.  At  a  later  period  he  took  up 
his  abode  there. 

Exodus  occurred  in  fourth  generation.         In  the  sixth  generation. 

Gen.  XV.  13,  16.  1  Chron.  i.  34;  ii.  1,  3-9. 

The  best  critics  hold  that  the  term  "  generation,"  in  the  ^rst 
passage  denotes  a  century.^  The  ''  four  hundred  years  "  may  be 
taken  here  as  a  round  number;  otherwise,  they  may  begin 
with  the  birth  of  Isaac,  while  the  "  four  hundred  and  thirty  " 
of  Gal.  iii.  17  may  date  from  the  call  of  Abraham.^ 

Fast  observed  on  the  ninth  day.  On  the  tenth  day. 

Lev.  xxiii.  32.  Lev.  xvi.  29. 

The  fast  extended  from  the  evening  of  the  ninth  to  that  of 
the  tenth  day.  Hence  it  was  spoken  of  as  occurring  on  either 
day. 

Several  cases  of  a  kindred  nature  may  be  considered  here : 
Feast,  —  duration,  seven  days,  Ex.  xii.  15;  six  days,  Dent, 
xvi.  8  (in  the  latter  passage  the  seventh  day  is  specified  sepa- 
rately). God's  work  ended  on  the  seventh  day.  Gen.  ii.  2 ;  on 
the  sixth  day,  Ex.  xx.  11  (Murphy:  "To  finish  a  work,  in 
Hebrew  conception,  is  to  cease  from  it,  to  have  done  with  it"). 
Interval  before  passover.  Matt.  xxvi.  2  and  John  xii.  1  (the 
latter  passage  refers  to  a  somewhat  earlier  time,  to  which,  also, 
the  sixth  verse  of  Matt.  xxvi.  reverts).  Interval  before  trans- 
figuration, Mark  ix.  2  and  Luke  ix.  28  (Luke's  expression, 
"about  an  eight  days,"  includes  the  two  extreme  days).  Jordan 
crossed  within  three  days,  Josh.  i.  1 1  ;  iii.  2  ;  on  about  the 
eighth  day.  Josh.  ii.  22;  iii.  1,  2  (possibly,  as  Kimchi  thinks, 
Joshua  sent  the  spies  two  or  three  days  before  the  announce- 

'  According  to  Fuerst  and  Gescnius,  the  Hebrew  term  ~ii'n  means  not 
only  a  generation,  but  also  a  century.  So  the  Latin  "  seculum  "  ori^rin- 
ally  meant  an  age  or  generation,  but  in  later  times  came  to  denote  a 
cetitury. 

'  So  Jacobns,  Murphy,  Wordsworth,  and  the  earlier  commentators. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  417 

ment,  so  that,  in  ii.  1,  we  should  read,  "Joshua  had  sent"  etc. 

Or,  the  ''  three  days  "  might  be  "  the  latest  time  that  could  be 

allowed  the  people  to  prepare  for  crossing." '    More  probably  the 

unexpected  detention  of  the  spies  slightly  disarranged  Joshua's 

plans,  so  that  the  crossing  was  deferred  three  or  foiu*  days). 

Feast  observed  under  Zenibbabel.  Not  subsequent  to  Joshua. 

Ezra  iii.  4.  Neh.  viii.  17. 

The  second  passage  means  simply  that  there  had  been  no 

such  celebration.     The  children  of  Israel  "  had  not  done  so  "  ; 

the  whole  congregation  had  not  since  Joshua's  time  dwelt  in 

booths,  as  in  the  present  instance. 

Heaven  prepared  from  eternity.         Not  till  after  Christ's  ascension. 
Matt.  XXV.  34;  Heb.  iv.  3;  xi.  16.  John  xiv.  2,  3. 

The  word  "  prepare,"  in  the  first  texts,  denotes  to  create  ;  in 

the  last  case,  to  adapt  to  one's  character  and  needs.     Heaven, 

as  a  place,  was  created  from  eternity ;  but  the  process  of  its 

adaptation  to  any  given  soul,  in  order  to  preserve  the  fitting 

relation  to  that  soul's  character  and  progress  here  below,  may 

not  be  completed  till  the  soul's  earthly  probation  terminates. 

That  is,  a  mutual  preparation  —  of  the  soul  for  heaven  and  of 

heaven  for  the  soul  —  may  be  now  in  progress. 

Holy  Spirit  existing  before  man.  Not  till  later. 

Gen.  i.  2 ;  Ps.  civ.  30.  John  vii.  39. 

The  text  at  the  right  does  not  refer  at  all  to  the  beginning 

of  the  Spirit.     The  ellipsis  is  to  be  supplied  in  some  such  way 

as  follows :  "  The  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on  him  should 

receive,  for  the  Holy  Si^irit  was  not  yet  [received  by  them]  ; 

because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."     The  verb  which  is 

expressed  suggests  that  which  is  to  be  supplied.^ 

Holy  Spirit  bestowed  before  Pentecost.  Not  till  that  time. 

John  XX.  22.  Acts  i.  5,  8;  ii.  1-4. 

In  the  first  text,  the  words  "  Receive  ye,"  etc.,  some  hold 

'  Tliis  is  Keil's  view. 

■•^  Codex   15.   followed  by   Lacliniann   and   Meyer,   supplies  SfSojxtvov ; 
Chrysostom,  Sodtf,  Allbrd,  ii/fjayuvv. 


418  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

that  the   imperative  is   here  used  for   the  future,  "  Ye  shall 

receive."     So  Kuinoel.*     Alford :  "  The  presence  of  the  Lord 

now  was  a  partial  and  temporary  fulfilment  of  his  promise  to 

return  to  them ;  the  imparting  of  the  Spirit  now  was  a  symbol 

and  foretaste  of  what  they  should  receive  as  Pentecost." 

Ishmael  about  sixteen  years  of  age.  Ajiparenthj  vei~y  young. 

Gen.  xvii.  24,  25;  xxi.  5-8.  Gen.  xxi.  14-18. 

The  English  version  of  verses  14—18  is  peculiarly  infelicitous, 
and  makes  a  wrong  impression.  The  "  child  "  was  not  placed 
upon  Ilagar's  shoulder,  nor  cast  under  the  shrub,  nor  held  in 
the  hand,  as  an  infant  might  have  been.  The  Hebrew  word 
here  rendered  "  child,"  denotes,  not  only  an  infant,  but  also  a 
boy  or  young  man?  Ishmael  was  at  the  time  some  sixteen  years 
of  age.  The  growing  boy  would  be  much  more  easily  over- 
come by  the  heat,  thirst,  and  fatigue  of  wandering  than  his 
mother,  the  hardy  Egyptian  hand-maid.  When  he  yielded  to 
exhaustion  she  hastily  laid  him,  fainting  and  half -dead,  under  the 
shelter  of  a  shrub.  Even  after  he  was  refreshed  with  water, 
he  needed  to  be  "  held,"  that  is,  supported  and  led,  for  a  time.' 

Israelites  bondage  400  years.  Apparently  a  less  time. 

Gen.  XV.  13.  Gen.  xii.  4;  xxi.  5;  xxv.  26;  xlvii.  9. 

Two  diverse  theories  are  advocated  by  critics  with  regard  to 

the  duration  of  the  servitude  in  Egypt.     1st.  Many*  hold  that 

its  actual  length  was  less  than  two  hundred  and  ffteen  years. 

They  maintain  generally  that  the  "  four  hundred  years  "  begin 

with  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  the  "  four  hundred  and  thirty,"  * 

witli  the  call  of  Abraham.     Isaac  was  born  in  the  twenty-fifth 

year  of  Abraham's   sojourn  in  Canaan ;    Jacob  was  born  in 

'  Compare,  on  the  otlicr  hand,  Winer's  Gr.immiir  of  N.  T.  Idiom,  p.  312. 

-  So  I'ucrst  and  (Jcsenius.  The  same  word  is  aiijilied  to  Joseph  when 
SKveiiteen  j'cars  of  ay;c,  (>en.  xxxvii.  2,  .jO. 

■'  So  Iveii,  Kurt/.,  Lanire,  and  others  in  sul)stance. 

^  lJeny;el,  IJauniL^arteii,  Mr.  Browne  (Kitto,  i  509,  and  Ordo  Saeeiorum, 
pp.  295-31C),  and  Mr.  W..  S.  I'oolc  (Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  442-444),  and 
Others. 

''  Ex.  xii.  40. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  419 

Isaac's  sixtieth  year,  and  was  one  hundred  and  thirty  when  he 
descended  to  Egypt.  This  would  leave  but  two  hundred  and 
fifteen  years  for  the  whole  sojourn  in  Egypt ;  only  a  portion 
even  of  this  latter  period  being  spent  in  actual  servitude.  This 
hypothesis  is  open  to  weighty  objections,  some  of  which  are : 
that  the  free,  independent,  nomad  life  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  previous  to  the  descent  mto  Egypt,  does  not  properly 
come  under  the  head  of  servitude  and  ajffliction  predicted  in 
Gen.  XV.  13 ;  that  a  large  portion  of  the  period  was  spent  in 
Canaan,'  whUe  but  07ie  land,  that  of  Egypt,  is  mentioned  in  the 
prediction ;  that  the  former  country  could  not,  in  view  of  the 
Divine  promise  to  Abraham,  be  characterized  as  a  "  land  not 
theirs  "  ;  and  that,  on  this  hypothesis,  the  grandfather  of  Moses 
must  have  had  in  the  lifetime  of  the  latter  8600  male  descend- 
ants, of  whom  2750  were  between  thirty  and  fifty  years  of 
age  !^ 

2d.  It  is  maintained  by  the  majority  of  modern  critics' 
that  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  occupied  the  whole  fovu*  hundred  or 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years.  This  theory,  which  allows 
ample  time  for  the  increase  of  the  Israelites,  and  which  meets 
the  demands  of  the  case  in  other  respects,  encounters  the  fol- 
lowing objections :  that  Paul  *  reckons  "  four  hundred  and 
tliif ty  years  "  between  the  promise  to  Abraham  and  the  giving 
of  the  law  (here,  however,  since  the  precise  length  of  time  did 
not  affect  his  argument,  we  may  suppose  that  he  follows  the 
commonly  received  view  of  his  day,  or,  as  Lange  says,  he  may 
have  regarded  the  death  of  Jacob  as  "  the  closing  date  of  the 
time  of  the  promise");  that  the  time  was  but  four  generations* 

1  See  Gen.  xxvi.  2,  3. 

-  Num.  iii.  27,  28;  iv.  36.  Compare  Crecn's  "  Pentateuch  Vindicated," 
p.  129;  Kurtz,  Vol.  ii.  144,  145;  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  450,  451. 

^  Delitzscli,  Kwald,  Gcsenius,  Hilvernick,  Ilen<2;stenberg,  Ilofinann,  .Tahn, 
Kalisch,  Keil,  Knolxl,  Kurtz,  Lanj^e,  Micbaelis,  Rjuike,  Ucinke,  Hoseu- 
miillcr,  Ticle,  Tuch,  Winer,  etc. 

*  Gal.  iii.  17. 

*  Gen.  XV.  IC. 


420  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 

(we  have  seen  that  this  is  equivalent  to  four  hundred  years)  ; 
and  that  not  enough  names  are  given  in  the  genealogy  to  cover 
so  long  a  period  (it  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  Kurtz  and 
others,  that  the  omission  of  several  names  in  a  genealogy  was 
common  ;  and  that  the  words  "  bear "  and  "  beget "  are  used 
with  reference  to  somewhat  remote  ancestors.^  Hence  it  is  in- 
ferred that  in  Ex.  vi.  18-20  several  generations  have  been 
omitted). 

Israelites  dwelt  in  Heshbon  300  years.  A  longer  period. 

Judg.  xi.  26.  Various  texts. 

If,  following  Josephus,^  we  allow  twenty-five  years  for 
Joshua's  period  of  rule,  and  ten  years  for  Eleazar  and  the 
elders^  who  outlived  Joshua,  adding  also  the  several  periods  of 
judgeship,  and  of  servitude  previous  to  Jephthah,  as  recorded 
in  the  Book  of  Judges,  we  obtain  three  hundi-ed  and  twenty- 
nine  years ;  sufficiently  near  to  the  round  number  above. 

Jacob's  age  at  his  flight,  forty  years.  Seventy-seven  years. 

Gen.  xxvi.  34;  xxviii.  5.  Gen.  xli.  46,  53;  xlv.  6. 

Joseph  was  some  thirty-nine  years  old  at  the  time  his  father, 
aged  one  hundred  and  thirty,  went  down  to  Egypt ;  hence  he 
v/as  born  when  his  father  was  ninety-one  years  old.  But 
Joseph's  birth  occurring  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  sojourn 
with  Laban,  it  follows  that  Jacob,  instead  of  being  only  forty 
years  old,''  was  actually  seventy-seven,'  at  the  time  of  his  flight 
into  Mesopotamia.  Besides,  since  Isaac  was  one  hundred  years 
old  at  the  time  of  Esau's  marriage,  and  lived  to  the  age  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty,  we  have  a  period  of  eighty  years  for 
Jacob's  tarry  with  his  parents,  his  sojourn  in  Mesopotamia,  and 
his  return  to  his  father  at  Hebron." 

'  Sec  strikiii}^  examples  in  Gen.  xlvi.  15,  18,  22. 

»  Antiq.  V.  1   29. 

"Josh.  xxiv.  31,.33. 

*  So  Von  IJolileii  and  Liitzelber^^cr. 

^  So  Lan^re,  IMurpliy,  Keil,  Kurtz,  Ilcngstenberg,  etc. 

'  Gen.  XXXV.  27. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  421 

Jacob's  sons,  —  eleven  born  in  thirteen  years.  Within  seven  years. 

Gen.  xxix.  20,  21 ;  xxxi.  41.  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31;  xxx.  25. 

Jacob  served  the  "  seven  years  "  for  Rachel,  after  his  mar- 
riage with  her.*  In  the  first  four  years  after  the  complex 
marriage,  Leah  bore  four  sons  and  Bilhah  two ;  in  the  fifth  and 
sixth  years  Zilpah  had  also  two.  In  the  sixth  and  seventh 
Leah  bore  two  more  children,  and  in  the  latter  year  Rachel 
bore  Joseph.^  Thus  Jacob  might  have  eleven  sons  born  to  him 
in  seven  years. 

Kennicott,  ITorsley,  and  Beer  maintain  that,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  text  of  Gen.  xxxi.  41,  Jacob  actually  sipent  Jbrty  years 
in  the  employ  of  Laban,  and  that  all  his  children,  except  Joseph, 
were  born  during  the  first  thirty-four  years.* 

Jehovah,  —  name  unknown.  Well-known. 

And  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto        Name  appears  in  the  original  of  the 
Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of   following  passages,  Gen.  iv.  1,  26;  v. 
God  Almighty,  but  by  my  name  J  EHO-    29 ;  ix.  26. 
VAH  was  I  not  known  to  them.    Ex. 
vi.  3. 

Some*  think  that  the  name  was  introduced  in  Genesis  by 

anticipation,  that  Moses  "  antedated "  a  name  which  had  just 

come  into  use  for  the  first  time ;  others  ^  take  the  meaning  to 

be,  not  that  the  name  was  not  known  before,  but  that  its  full 

meaning  was  previously  unknown  ;  others  that  those  special 

attributes  of  God,  or  that  aspect  of  his  character,  which  the 

name  "  Jehovah  "  indicates,  had  not  been  disclosed  before. 

Judges,  — period,  about  300  years.       Four  hundred  and  fifty  years. 
Some  twenty  texts  in  Judg.  and  1  Sam.  Acts  xiii.  20. 

Adding  together  the  several  periods  of  rest,  judgeship,  and 

oppression  specified  in  the  above  twenty  texts,  and  allowing 

twenty  years  for  Joshua's  rule,  we  obtain  four  hundred  and  fifty 

years.     But  the  best  critics  discard  this  method  of  reckoning, 

and  hold  tliat  some  of  the  judges  were  contemporaries,  ruling  in 

di£ferent  portions  of  the  land  at  the  same  time.    The  text  from 

'  Gen.  xxix.  27-30.  ^  g^,  j^  substance  Lange  and  others. 

»  See  Bib.  Com.,  i.  177,  178.  ♦  Kbrard  and  Ewald. 

*  Aben  Ezra,  Calvin,  Ilavcrnick,  Munk,  etc. 
36 


422  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Acts  lias  really  no  bearing  upon  the  subject,  since,  according  to 
the  order  of  the  Greek  in  the  four  oldest  and  best  manuscripts, 
the  correct  rendering  is,  "  He  gave  them  their  land  as  a  pos- 
session about  four  hundred  and  fifty  years ;  and,  after  that,  he 
gave  [to  them]  judges  until  Samuel  the  prophet."  ^  It  may  be 
added  that  the  chronology  of  the  book  of  Judges  is  very  uncer- 
tain, there  being  more  than  Jijly  different  methods  of  reckoning 
the  same.^ 

Levites'  service  began  at  thirty.  At  twenty  years  of  age. 

Num.  iv.  3;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  3.       1  Chron.  xxiii.  24;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  17. 

In  Moses'  time  the  Levites  from  the  age  of  twenty-live  were 
employed  in  the  lighter  kinds  of  service ;  ^  while,  for  the  trans- 
portation of  the  heavier  materials  of  the  tabernacle  when  the 
Israelites  were  on  the  march,*  men  older  and  stronger  were 
required.^  After  the  temple  was  built,  its  much  less  onerous 
service  permitted  the  standard  of  age  to  be  lowered  to  twenty 
years.  After  the  age  of  fifty,  the  Levites  were  simply  to 
'*  keep  the  charge,"  or  guard  in  the  tabernacle,  but  were 
exempted  from  all  laborious  duties.® 

Light  a'eated  in  the  beginning.        Sun  and  moon  on  the  fourth  day. 
Gen.  i.  3.  Gen.  i.  14-19. 

The  question  is  often  sneeringly  asked,  "  How  is  it  that  the 
Bible  represents  light  as  existing  before  the  sun  and  moon  were 
created  "  ? 

Humboldt,^  followed  by  Wagner  and  Schubert,^  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  light  exists  independent  of  the  sun,  that  the 
earth  becomes  "  self-luminous  "  in  the  northern  light  ;  that  the 
earth,  as  well  as  other  planets,  particularly  Venus,  is  capable  in 
itself  of  developing  a  light  of  its  own. 

Such   interpreters   of  science   as   Agassiz    and   Guyot  have 

'  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1514,  note.        *  Keil,  Commentary,  p.  276,  note. 
»  Num.  viii.  24.  ■•  Num.  iv.  4-1.'),  24-26,  31-33. 

*  So  AbarbancI,  Abcn  Ezra,  Li}:htfoot,  Outram,  ami  Iteland. 

*  Num.  viii.  2.5,  26.  '  Cosmos,  i.  97,188,189  (Sabine's  trans.). 

*  See  in  Kurtz'  Bible  ami  Astronomy,  pp.  427-432. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  423 

shown  that  light  results  from  molecular  action  or  comhination} 
Hence,  the-  command,  "  Light  be,"  was  simply  another  way  of 
saying,  "  Let  molecular  action  begin,"  —  whereupon  light  was 
at  once  evolved.  Professor  Dana^  says,  "At  last,  through 
modern  scientific  research,  we  learn  that  the  appearance  of 
light  on  the  first  day,  and  of  the  sun  on  the  fourth  —  an  idea 
foreign  to  man's  unaided  conceptions  —  is  as  much  in  the 
volume  of  nature  as  that  of  sacred  writ." 

"  '  Let  there  be  light/  said  God,  and  forthwith  light 
Ethereal,  first  of  things,  qnintessence  pure. 
Sprung  from  the  deep,  and  from  her  native  east 
To  journey  through  the  aery  gloom  began, 
Sphered  in  a  radiant  cloud,  for  yet  the  sun 
Was  not ;  she  in  a  cloudy  tabernacle 
Sojourned  the  while."  ^ 

Lord's  supper  instituted  at  Passover.  Upon  the  preceding  day. 

Matt.  xxvi.  17-30;  Mark  xiv.  12-26;  John  xiii.  1, 2;  xviii.  28. 

Luke  xxii.  1, 13-20. 

Of  the  two  leading  theories  the  first  is,  that  the  Lord's  sup- 
per was  instituted  on  the  evening  following  the  fourteenth  day 
of  Nisan,  at  the  legal  time  of  the  passover.  Robinson  *  main- 
tains that  the  term  "  passover  "  sometimes  comprises  the  whole 
paschal  festival,  or  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  which  began 
with  the  passover  proper  ;  that  the  expression  "  to  eat  the  pas- 
sover "  may  mean  "  to  keep  the  paschal  festival  "  ;  and  that  the 
"preparation  of  the  passover,"  John  xix.  14,  denotes  simply 
the  customary  "  preparation  "  for  the  Sabbath,  wliich  occurred 
in  that  paschal  week.  In  this  view,  which  relieves  the  difficulty, 
a  host  of  critics  "  substantially  concur. 

'  Thompson's  Man  in  Genesis  and  in  Geology,  pp.  15-32. 
■  Uibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1856,  pp.  114,  118. 
'^  Paradise  Lost,  Book  vii.,  line  243-249. 

*  English  Harmony,  pp.  200-205. 

*  So  Andrews,  Bochart,  Davidson,  Fairbairn,  Gardiner,  Ilengstcnbcrg, 
Lange,  Lewin,  Lightfoot,  Jlilligan,  Norton,  Olshausen,  Robinson,  Schoott- 
gen,  Sticr,  Tholuck,  and  Wicselcr. 


424  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

Others^  hold  that  the  Saviour  and  his  disciples  anticipated 
the  passover  by  one  day,  partaking  of  a  substitute  upon  the 
thirteenth  day  of  Nisan.  They  suggest  that  there  were  two 
distinct  days,  both  legal  (one  real,  the  other  apparent  time)  for 
keeping  the  passover  ;  or  that  the  Jews  had  fallen  behind  a  day 
in  the  computation,  and  our  Saviour  corrected  their  error ;  or 
that  they  at  this  time  purposely  delayed  a  day.  Both  of  the 
above  theories  find  very  able  and  ingenious  defenders. 

Man's  days  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  A  different  period. 

Gen.  vi.  3.  Gen.  xi.  11  13,  32. 

Either,  there  shall  be  a  respite  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years  before  the  deluge,  or  human  life  shall  gi-adually  dimmish 
to  that  length.^ 

Moses  feared  the  king  of  Egypt.  Did  not  fear  him. 

Ex.  ii.  14,  15;  iv.  19j  Acts  vii.  29.  Heb.  xi.  27. 

He  feared  the  king  at  first,  but  braved  his  anger  at  a  later 
period. 

Peter's  denials  at  one  time.  At  another  time. 

Matt.  xxvi.  34;  Luke  xxii.  34;  John  xiii.  38.  Mark  xiv.  30. 

The  four  evangelists  agree  as  to  the  number  of  the  denials  ; 
but  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  represent  them  as  occurring 
before  the  crowing  of  the  cock  ;  Mark  as  occurring  before  the 
cock  should  crow  "  twice."  Mr.  Warington,^  disregarding  this 
trivial  difference,  takes  the  essential  substance  of  Christ's  words 
to  be  that,  "  in  a  few  hours'  time,  ere  early  dawn,  Peter  should 
thrice  deny  his  Master  whom  he  now  professed  himself  so  ready 
to  die  for." 

Alford,  Whitby,  and  many  commentators  note  that  cocks  are 
accustomed  to  crow  twice,  —  at  or  near  midnight,  and  not  far 
from  day-breuk.     Inasmuch  as  few  persons  hear  thojirst  crow- 

*  Alford,  nicck,  Caspar!,  DcWette,  Ebrard,  KUicott,  Erasmus,  Kwaltl, 
Grotius,  Meier,  Lucke,  Meyer,  Neander,  SiefTert,  Suiccr,  Tiseliendorf, 
Tittmann,  Westcott,  Winer,  U'rati-^law,  in  substance. 

-  See  authorities  in  Bib.  Com.,  on  Gen.  vi.  8. 

"  On  Inspiration,  pp.  140,  111. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  425 

ing,  the  term  geuerally  denotes  the  second.  All  the  evangelists 
refer  to  this  latter ;  but  Mark  with  greater  precision  designates 
it  as  the  "  second  crowing." 

It  seems  probable  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists  has  men- 
tioned all  the  denials  by  Peter  during  that  sorrowful  night. 
As  the  accusation  was  caught  up,  reiterated,  and  flung  in  his 
face  by  one  and  another  of  the  servants  and  the  guard,  the 
terror-stricken  man,  in  his  agitation  and  in  his  anxiety  to  clear 
himself,  would  he  likely  to  repeat  the  denial  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  times,  and  in  every  variety  of  phrase.  And,  meanwhile, 
he  would  natm-ally  be  shifting  about  from  place  to  place.  This 
hypothesis  accounts  for  the  difficulty  as  to  the  persons  who 
accosted  him,  and  the  places  where  he  was  when  the  denials 
were  uttered.' 

Samuel  judged  Israel  all  his  days.        Resigned  at  Saul's  accession. 
1  Sam.  vii.  15.  1  Sam.  viii.  5;  xii.  1. 

Samuel  laid  down  the  civil,  but  retained  the   ecclesiastical 

authority  ;  so  that,  as  Ewald-  says,  "he  is  still,  as  before  the 

change,  the  revered  prophet."     This  appears  clear  from  xi.  7, 

where  an  edict  is  issued  in  the  name  of  Saul  and  of  Samuel. 

Samuel's  meeting  with  Saul,  in  seven  days.        Some  two  years  after. 

1  Sam.  X.  8.  1  Sam.  xiii.  8-11. 

Some  think  that  the  first  appointment  was  kept,  xi.  14,  15, 

and  a  second  made,  to  which  latter  the  thirteenth  chapter  refers. 

But  Ewald  ^  and  KeU  take  the  passage  at  the  left  as  a  mere 

general  direction,  that,  if  at  any  time  Saul  went  down  to  Gilgal 

to  offer  sacrifice,  he  was  to  wait  there  tUl  Samuel  arrived. 

Seed  time  and  harvest  unfailing.  Interrupted  at  times. 

Gen.  viii.  22,  Gen.  xli.  54,  56;  xlv.  6. 

The  Hebrew  woixi  rendered  '*•  cease,"  in  the  first  text,  means 

'  Sec,  on  these  points,  Whatcly's  Essay  on  Dangers  to  Christian  Faith, 
p.  .'553  (2d  edition);  Jounial  of  Sacred  Literature,  April,  1854,  p.  81-92; 
Ebrard's  Gospel  History,  pp.  425-427;  Andrews'  Life  of  our  Lord,  pp. 
473-475,  188-496. 

*  History  of  Israel,  iii.  42. 

'  History  of  Israel,  iii.  29. 
86* 


426  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

to  come  to  an  end,  to  cease  to  he.     A  temporary  interruption  is 

not  precluded.     Besides,  an  unbroken  succession  of  seasons  is 

Ijromised,  but  not  necessarily  of  crops. 

Sepulchre  visited  at  siinrise.  At  the  early  dawn. 

Mark  xvi.  2.  John  xx.  1. 

Ebrard^  thinks  that  Mary  Magdalene  —  the  only  woman 
specified  by  John  —  came  Ji)'st  and  alone  to  the  sepulchre.  If 
so,  she  may  have  come  "  early,  when  it  was  yet  dark  " ;  while 
the  other  women  did  not  arrive  till  "  the  rising  of  the  sun." 
Or,  of  the  two  parties  of  women,^  Mary  Magdalene  with  her 
friends  may  have  come  at  the  earlier,  the  others  at  the  later 
time. 

Otherwise  in  the  loose  popular  sense,  the  expression  "  rising 
of  the  sun"  may  denote  the  early  dawn,  when  the  rays  of  the 
coming  sun  just  begin  to  redden  the  east.  Thus,  in  Ps.  civ.  22, 
it  is  said,  respecting  young  lions,  "  The  sun  ariseth,  they  gather 
•  themselves  together,  and  lay  them  down  in  their  dens";  yet  it 
is  well  known  that  wild  beasts  do  not  wait  for  the  actual  ap- 
pearance of  the  sun  ;  at  the  break  of  day  they  retreat  to  their 
lairs.^  Upon  any  of  the  above  hypotheses,  there  is  no  discrep- 
ancy in  the  case. 

Temple  built  480  years  after  exodus.  At  a  different  time. 

1  Kings  vi.  1.  Numerous  texts  in  earlier  books. 

As  to  the  oft  cited  text,  Acts  xiii.  20,  we  have  elsewhere  seen 

that  it  has  no  bearing  upon  the  present  question.     The  period 

of  time  intervening  between  the  exodus  and  the  building  of  the 

temjile  is  variously  reckoned  by  scholars  at  from  480  to  741 

years.*     The    Septuagint   gives    440   years ;   .losephus,*   592 ; 

Browne,"  573  ;  Clinton,'  612  ;  Rawlinson,  580  to  GOO.     On  the 

*  Gospel  History,  pp.  417,  448. 
'  See  infra,  p.  8.8,  note. 

'  See  Robinson's  Harmony,  p  212;  also,  compare  Judp;.  ix.  32,  8.S. 

*  See  some  fourteen  difTcrent  estimates,  Ordo  Saeclorum,  pp.  6,  7. 
'  Antiq.  riii.  3,  1. 

«  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  70.3. 

'  Fasti  Ilcllcnici,  ICssay  on  Scripture  Chronology. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  427 

other  hand,  Bahr,  Cassel,  Ewald,"  Kcil,  Rosch,^  Thenius,  Winer,' 

and  others  accept  the  number  480  as  authentic.     If  we  adopt 

the  latter  hypothesis,  we  may  follow  Bachmann,  Cassel,  Keil,* 

and  others,  hi  making  several  of  the  periods  of  rest,  oppression, 

etc.,  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  synchronous,  thereby  adjusting  the 

whole  amount  so  as  to  harmonize  with  1  Kings  vi.  1. 

Or,  we  may  regard  the  480  as  a  numerical  error ;  or,  with 

Eawliuson,as  "  an  interpolation"  of  a  comparatively  recent  date. 

Wandering  of  Israelites  forty  years.  Somewhat  less  time. 

Num.  xiv.  33.  Num.  xxxlii.  3;  Josh.  iv.  19. 

The  deficiency  was  merely  Jii^e  days.     In  the  first  text,  a 

round  number  is  employed.     Other   examples  of  the  use  of 

round  numbers  are,  Ex.  xvi.  1, 13,  14,  35  and  Josh.  v.  10-12  ; 

also  1  Kings  vi.  1  and  37,  38. 

Worship  of  God,  —  beginning.  Not  till  a  later  time. 

Gen.  iv.  3,  4.  Gen.  iv.  26. 

The  latter  passage  is  of  doubtful  interjjretation.  It  may 
refer  to  the  first  institution  of  the  regular,  solemn,  public  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah,  in  place  of  the  former  private,  arbitrary, 
irregular  service  as  seen  in  the  sacrifices  of  Cain  and  Abel.* 

Murphy  thinks  that  at  this  time  men  first  began  to  address 
God  in  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  Previously  their  worship  had 
been  mute  adoration. 

F.    MISCELLANEOUS, 

Altar,  — material,  earth.  It  was  wood. 

Ex.  XX.  24.  Ex.  xxvii.  1,  8. 

The  altar  in  question  was  a  kind  of  coffer,  made  of  stout 

acacia  plunks  covered  with  plates  of  bronze.     When  about  to 

be  used,  its  interior  was  filled  wi^i  earth  or  stones,  the  whole 

1  Vol.  ii.  pp.  3G8,  369. 

*  In  Studicn  unci  Kritikcn,  1863,  pp.  712-742. 
8  Real-Wurtcrbuch,  ii.  327-329. 

*  Sec  tlicir  respcrtivu  Commentaries  upon  the  Book  of  Judges. 
^  So  Kurtz,  Vol.  i.  p.  xvi.  ;  also,  Lange. 


428  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 

being  levelled,  so  as  to  form  a  kind  of  hearth.     It  was,  there- 
fore, strictly  speaking,  an  altar  case^  "  hollow  with  boards." 

Barley,  — field.  Lentiles,  — field. 

1  Cbron.  xi.  13.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  11. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  two  passages  refer  to  the  same 
incident.  If  they  do  thus  refer,  D"'dl5,  lentiles,  has  been  con- 
founded with  D''"i5b,  barley. 

Cattle  of  Egypt,  —  all  died.  Some  animals  survived. 

Ex.  ix.  3,  6.  Ex.  ix.  19-21;  xiv.  7,  9. 

The  first  passage  seems  to  imply  that  all  the  horses,  asses, 
camels,  oxen,  and  sheep  of  the  Egyptians,  died ;  yet,  the  latter 
passages  show  that  their  cattle  and  horses  did  not  all  die. 

1st.  The  term  "  all "  is  often  used  in  a  loose  sense  to  denote 
the  mass,  the  great  majority,  —  such  a  quantity  that  what  re- 
mains is  nothing  in  comparison.^  This  use  of  the  word  is  due 
in  part  to  "  the  want  of  universal  terms  in  Hebrew."* 

2d.  The  plague  was  limited  to  animals  "ew  the  field,"  ix.  3. 
Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  *  tells  us  that  some  animals  were  stall- 
fed  in  Egypt.  This  explains  the  restrictive  clause,  "  in  the 
field " ;  as  also,  the  existence  of  cattle  among  the  Egyptians 
after  the  plague. 

3d.  The  Hebrew  word  rendered  "cattle,"  in  the  text  referred 
to  in  the  ninth  chapter,  denotes  neat  cattle,  and  the  smaller 
animals,  but  seldom,  if  ever,  includes  horses.^  These  consid- 
erations obviate  the  difficulty. 

Crooked  straightened.  Cannot  he  straightenad. 

Isa.  xl.  4.  Ec'cl.  i.  15;  vii.  13. 

Tlie   first   text   refers    to   moral  defects.     The  design  and 

tendency  of  the  Gospel  is  to  remedy  these  ;  to  change  dis- 

•  See  .Jahn,  Bib.  Arohacol.,  §  329;  Kurtz,  iii.  142;  also,  Ex.  xxvii.  8. 

'  So  Abcn  Ezra,  Bcii  Gcislion,  and  Keil.      See  examples  of  this  use, 
1  Sam.  i.  21  and  22;  Matt.  iii.  5  and  Luke  vii.  30. 
■'  K.  S.  roolc  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2541. 

*  Ancient  IC^yptians,  i.  96  (2d  scries);  similarly  Abarbancl  and  Rashi. 

''  Gcscnius  says  the  word  is  "  strictly  used  only  of  sheep,  goats,  and  neat 
cattle,  cxcluilinjj;  beasts  of  burden.  . . .  More  rarely  asses  and  camels  are 
also  comprehended." 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  429 

honesty  and  perversity  into  equity  and  simplicity,  and  haughti- 
ness into  humility. 

The  other  passages  refer  to  natui-al  or  constitutional 
defects.  As  a  rule,  these  are  remediless.  One  born  an  idiot 
can  never,  by  any  pi-ocess  of  education,  become  a  man  of 
talent ;  a  person  born  without  eyes  can  never  have  the  defect 
remedied  by  human  skill.  Zockler,  with  Hengstenberg  and 
Ilitzig,  observes,  "  Human  action  and  effort,  in  spite  of  all 
exertion,  cannot  alter  that  which  has  once  been  arranged  and 
fixed  by  God."  In  the  Vulgate  Eccl.  i.  15,  is  rendered  singu- 
larly, thus :  "  The  number  of  fools  is  infinite." 

Earth  founded  upon  the  seas.  Founded  upon  nothing. 

Ps.  xxiv.  2.  Job  xxvi.  7. 

The  first  passage  asserts  that  the  earth  is  established  above 

the  waters,  so  that  they  will  not  overflow  and  destroy  it ;  the 

second  text  —  the  words  of  an  unins^^ired  man  —  may  refer  to 

the  scientific  truth  that  the  earth  hangs  free  without  support  in 

sjjace. 

Earth  saturated.  Needed  moisture. 

Gen.  i.  9, 10.  Gen.  ii.  6. 

Some  ^  assert  that  the  fact  of  the  earth's  being  moistened  by 
an  ascending  mist  or  exhajation,  does  not  harmonize  with  its 
previous  submergence  in  water.  As  if  the  earth  upon  emerg- 
ing from  the  briny  moisture  which  could  not  support  vegetation, 
would  not  aftericard  become  dry,  and  need  dews  and  rains  ! 

Golden  calf,  burnt  and  rjround.         Burnt,  stamped,  and  ground. 

Ex.  xxxii.  20.  Dent.  ix.  21. 

Goguet^and  Stahl '' say  that  natron,  which  aljounds  in  the 

East,  has,  like   tartaric  acid,  the   power  of  reducing  gold  to 

powder,  —  and  tliis  the  sooner,  if  the  gold  be  previously  heated. 

Moses,  having  pulverized  the  gold  in  this  way,  mixed  it  with 

water,  and  caused  the  Israelites  to  partake  of  the  nauseating 

liquid. 

1  Sec  in  Davidson's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  86. 

^  Smith's  Bil)le  Diet.,  i.  345. 

'  Hawks,  Monuments  of  Egyjit,  p.  228. 


430  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

Davidson  *  explains  the  case,  as  follows  :  In  preparing  ores 
of  gold  and  silver  for  the  smelter,  stamps,  or  massive  beams 
shod  with  iron,  and  weighing  as  much  as  eight  hundred  pounds, 
are  used.  These  are  lifted  by  machinery,  and  let  fall  ui^oh  the 
ore  contained  in  iron  troughs.  If  overstamped,  or  ''  stamjied 
dead,"  as  it  is  termed,  the  fine  particles  float  away  and  are  lost. 
Gold,  from  its  great  malleability,  is  peculiarly  liable  to  suffer 
thus.  The  gold  of  wliich  the  calf  was  made  was  designedly 
and  indignantly  overstamped ;  and,  when  cast  into  the  stream, 
would  float  away.  As  this  author  thinks  it  would  impart  no 
special  taste  to  the  water. 

Wilkinson  ^  mentions  that,  in  the  towns  of  Egypt,  certain 
persons  were  employed  to  pound  various  substances  in  large 
stone  mortars  with  heavy  metal  pestles.  When  well  pounded, 
the  substance  was  taken  out,  sifted,  and  the  larger  particles 
returned  to  the  mortar.  This  process  was  continued,  till  a 
suflBcient  degree  of  fineness  was  secured. 

Moses  may  have  cast  the  image  into  the  fire  to  change  its 
form  ;  or  —  if  it  were  made  of  wood  and  covered  with  plates 
of  gold  —  to  destroy  its  combustible  part,  afterwards  employing 
some  one  of  the  processes  above  described. 

Images  taken  away.  They  were  burned. 

2  Sam.  V.  21.  1  Chron.  xiv.  12. 

The  Hebrew  expression  rendered  to  take  away  may  also 
mean  to  destroy. 

Leadership  of  the  cloud  satisfactory.  Not  reliable. 

Ex.  xiii.  21,  22.  Num.  x.  29-31. 

Geddes  an«l  others "  object  that  if  the  cloud  had  been  a  re- 
liable guide,  the  Israelites  would  not  have  needed  Hobab  to  be 
to  them  "  instead  of  eyes,"  as  knowing  "  how  they  were  to 
encamp  in  the  wilderness."     But,  God  is  not  wont  to  do  that  for 

•  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  2.j4,  2.>5. 

'•'Ancient  Kj^yptians,  iii.  180,181;  Hengstenbcrp:,  Egypt  and  Books  of 
Moses,  p.  217. 
^  Sec  in  Graves  on  Peiiiiiteucli,  p.  481  (sixth  edition). 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  431 

man  which  the  latter  might  do  for  himself.  The  jiillar  of  cloud 
determined  the  general  route  to  be  taken,  the  place  of  encamp- 
ment, and  the  length  of  tarry  Ib  each  location;  yet  human 
prudence  was  by  no  means  precluded  with  respect  to  arrang- 
ing the  encampment  so  as  to  combine  most  advantageously  the 
circumstances  of  water,  pasture,  shelter,  supply  of  fuel,  medi- 
cinal or  nutritive  plants  or  substances,  and  the  like,  in  or  near 
the  station.  In  all  these  particulars,  Hobab's  experience,  and 
knowledge  of  the  desert,  would  be  exceedingly  useful,  as  suji- 
plementary  to  the  guidance,  of  the  cloud.^ 

Manna,  —  taste,  like  wafers  made  with  honey.         Like  fresh  oil. 

Ex.  xvi.  31.  Num.^i.  8. 

The  Jewish  interpreters  and  Kurtz  say  that,  in  its  natural 

state,  it  tasted  like  "  cakes  with  honey,"  but  cooked  or  ground, 

like  "  fresh  oil."     The  Sejituagint  employs  in  the  first  passage 

a  word  which  is  interpreted   by  Athenaeus  .and    the   Greek 

scholiasts  as  denoting  "a  sweet  kind  of   confectionery  made 

with  oil." 

Molten  sea,  —  appendages,  knops-  Otherwise  called  oxen. 

1  Kings  vii.  24.  2  Chron.  iv.  3. 

The  "  knops  "  may  have  been  in  the  form  of  miniature  oxen. 

Or,  as  De  Wette  and  Rawlinson  think,  here  may  be  a  copyist's 

error,  D"?pS,  knops  or  gourds,  for  n'^'"p2,  oxen. 

Mosaic  law,  —  character,  cruel.  Conducive  to  happiness. 

Deut.  xxxiii.  2.  Deut.  xxx.  16. 

The  words  "  fiery  law,"  in  the  first  text  do  not  imply  cruelty 
in  the  law,  but  may  refer  to  the  illuminating  power  of  that  law, 
or  to  the  marked  exhibitions  of  divine  glory  when  the  decalogiie 
was  given.^ 

It  may  be  added  that  those  who  stigmatize  the  Mosaic  law 
as  ''  cruel,"  are  probably  not  aware  that  in  point  of  clemency  it 
compares  favorably  with  the  laws  of  other  nations  in  ancient,  as 
well  as  modern  times.     In  the  IMosaic  law  only  some  seventeen 

>  Kurtz,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  -lU,  CIS,  258,  -281.  -  Ex,  xix.  18. 


432  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

capital  crimes  are  mentioned.^  The  laws  of  the  Roman  kings, 
and  the  twelve  tables  of  the  decemviri  were  full  of  cruel  pun- 
ishments.^ In  the  English  code,  about  two  hundred  years  ago, 
there  were  one  hundred  and  forty-eight  cajiital  crimes,  "  many 
of  them  of  a  trivial  nature,  as  petty  thefts  and  trespasses  upou 
property."  In  England,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  it  was  a 
capital  crime  to  break  down  the  mound  of  a  fish-jiond,  to  cut 
down  a  cherry-tree  in  an  orchard,  to  steal  a  handkerchief  or 
other  trifle,  of  above  the  value  of  twelve  pence,  privately  from 
another's  person.  In  Sir  Wm.  Blackstone's  time  (a.d.  1723- 
1780),  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty^  offences  (almost 
ten  times  as  many  as  in  the  Mosaic  code),  were  declared  by  act 
of  parliament  to  be  capital  crimes,  worthy  of  instant  death.* 

These  facts  should  silence  those  who  are  perpetually  inveigh- 
ing against  the  "  barbarity  of  the  Mosaic  code." 

Mount  inaccessible.  Might  be  approached. 

Ex.  xix.  12,  21-24.  Ex.  xix.  13, 17. 

The  Israelites  were  commanded  to  "  set  bounds  "  about  the 
mount ;  perhaps,  to  build  a  fence  or  hedge  of  some  kind.  At 
the  blast  of  the  trumpet  they  were  to  leave  their  encampment, 
and  go  up  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain.  But  they  were  for- 
bidden to  '•  break  through  "  the  bounds  or  barrier,  that  is,  to 
pass  a  certain  limit,  under  penalty  of  death.'' 

Nothing  new  on  earth.  Some  things  are  new. 

Eccl.  i.  9,  10.  '        Isa.  xliii.  19;  Ixv.  17;  Jcr.  xxxi.  22. 

Obviously,  in  relation  to  the  Creator,  nothing  is  new,  for 
nothing  is  unforeseen  or  unexpected  to  him.  And  something 
similar  may  be  said  of  man,  viewed  as  a  race,  since  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature  recur  in  regular  order,  and  history  ever  tends 

'  Wines,  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  263. 

"  Montesquieu,  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  Book  vi.  chapter  15. 

'  One  writer  says,  "  nearly  three  hundred";  see  "Romilly,"  in  Apple- 
ton's  New  American  Cyclopaedia  (first  edition). 

^  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  iv.  4, 15-18  (Christian's  edition,  New  York, 
1822). 

'  ICurtz,  iii.  IIT),  116 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  433 

to  repeat  itself.     But,  with  reference  to  any  specific  man  or 

generation  of  men,  many  things  arc  "  new." 

Paschal  offering,  a  lamb  or  kid.  Might  he  from  the  herd. 

Ex.  xii.  5.  Deut  xvi.  2. 

The  Hebrew  word  "  seh "  means  both  a  latnb,  and  a  kid} 

This  fact  relieves  some  apjiarent  incongruities  in  our  version. 

In  the  second  text,  the  term  "  passover  "  includes  not  only  the 

proper  paschal  sacrifice,  but  also  the  offerings  ^  (some  of  which 

were  taken  from  the  "  herd  ")  of  the  succeeding  six  days  ;  as  is 

clear  from  the  next  verse :  "  seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened 

bread  therewith."     As  to  Ex.  xii.  9  compared  with  Deut.  xvi. 

7 ;    the  Hebrew  term  "  bashal "  means  sometimes  to  cook  in 

water  ;  at  other  times,  to  roast  or  broil? 

Parable  of  the  talents.  Of  the  pounds. 

Matt.  XXV.  14-30.  Luke  xix.  11-27. 

Strauss  asserts  that  these  are  discordant  versions  of  the  same 
parable  ;  but  Chrysostom,  Gerhard,  Alford,  and  Trench,*  have 
shown  that  they  are  separate  parables,  addressed  to  quite  dis- 
tinct groups  of  hearers,  in  different  states  of  mind,  send  needing 
different  admonitions. 

Strange  gods,  real  existences.  They  are  nothing. 

Ps.  xcvi.  4,  5;  Isa.  xliv.  9,  10,  17.  1  Cor.  viii.  4,  5;  x.  19. 

Paul,  in  asserting  that  "  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world," 

does  not  deny  the  existence  of  the  idol,  but  simply  that  it  has 

any  power  to  help  or  harm  the  worshipper.     As  Crusius  has 

remarked,  not  the  existence,  but    the  divinity,  of  the  idol  is 

called  in  question. 

Sun  and  moon  put  to  shame.  Their  glory  increased. 

Isa.  xxiv.  23.  Isa.xxx.  20. 

The  two  passages  combined  are  a  poetic  prediction  that  in  a 

commg  day,  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  moon,  though  increased 

^  Sec  Ex.  xii.  5. 
-  Num.  xxviii.  16-19. 

'  Compare  2  Sam.  xiii.  8;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  13;  particularly,  the  latter  text. 
*  (Jn  Parables,  p.  220  (American  edition). 
37 


434  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

sevenfold,  will  be  outdone  and  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the 
revelation  of  the  transcendent  glory  of  Jehovah. 

Version  of  affair,  —  one  form.  A  different  form. 

Gen.  xlii.  7-20,  30-34;  xliii.  3-13.  Gen.  xliv.  16-34. 

Tuch  refers  the  variation  to  the  inaccuracy  of  the  narrator, 

Jndah.     It  may  be  that  the  agitation  and  alarm  of  the  speaker 

modified   his   narrative  to  some   extent.     At   all   events,  his 

accuracy  is  not  vouched  for  by  the  sacred  historian. 

Vessels  made  for  the  temple.  Not  made  at  the  time. 

2  Chron.  xxiv.  14.  2  Kings  xii.  13, 14. 

The  statement  in  Kings  simply  amounts  to  this ;  that  none 
of  the  money  contributed  was  employed  in  making  vessels,  so 
long  as  the  repairing  of  the  temple  was  in  progress.  What  be- 
came of  the  surplus  that  remained  this  author  does  not  tell  us. 
But  the  chronicler  supplements  the  narrative  with  the  informa- 
tion that  this  surplus  was  afterwards  expended  in  making 
vessels  for  the  temple.^ 

Waters  of  Egypt  turned  to  blood.  Some  not  changed. 

Ex.  vii.  20,  21.  Ex.  vii.  22,  24. 

"We  may  take  the  word  "  all,"  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
verses,  in  the  loose  popular  sense,^  as  implying  yar  the  greater 
part ;  the  exceptions  being  so  few  and  insignificant  that  tlie 
author  overlooks  them  entirely.  Some  water  remained  un- 
changed, upon  which  the  magicians  operated,  and  which  the 
Egyptians  drank  during  the  interval.  Kurtz  ^  thinks  that  only 
Nile-water,  whether  in  the  river  or  in  vessels,  was  changed, 
tlie  water  in  the  wells  being  unaffected.  INIr.  R.  S.  Poole  ^  sug- 
gests tliat  "  only  the  water  that  was  seen  "  was  smitten,  that  the 
nation   might  not  perish.     Mr.  Alexander "  thinks  that  "  the 

'  So  Biihr,  Kcil,  and  Rawlinson. 

-  So  Kcil,  and  Ilenfrstcnberg  (Egj'pt  and  Boolvs  of  Moses,  pp.  109,  110). 
The  latter  points  out  the  use  of  universal  terms  throughout  the  narrative, 
"  all  the  trees  "  hroken  hj'the  hail,  etc.  The  idiom  is  a  verj'  common  one 
in  all  lanyruay;es. 

-■  Vol.  ii.  p.  271. 

*  Smith's  Iiil)le  Diet.,  iii.  2540. 

^  Kitto,  i.  749. 


HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  435 

water  when  filtered  through  the  earth  on  the  bank  of  the  river, 

was  restored  to  its  salubrity."     This  agrees  with  the  statement 

that  "  all  the  Egyptians  digged  round  about  the  river  for  water 

to  drink"  (vs.  24).     Any  one  of  these  hypotheses  obviates  the 

difficulty. 

Water  upon  Mt.  Carmel  ahundarit.  Tlie  drought  very  severe. 

1  Kinjjs  xviii.  32-35.  1  Kings  xvii.  7;  xviii.  5. 

A  rationalistic  author  sarcastically  observes  that  the  writer 
of  Kings,  in  representing  Elijah  as  using  so  much  water  ^  at  his 
sacrifice,  apparently  forgot  the  long-continued  drouglit,  which, 
having  lasted  more  than  two  years,  must  have  dried  up  the 
mountain  streams  and  the  river  Kishon  supplied  by  them. 

Whence  did  Elijah  obtain  water  ?  Blunt  ^  thinks  that,  since 
Carmel  is  upon  the  coast,  sea-water  was  employed.  Bahr  sug- 
gests that  the  brook  Kishon  was  not  dry,  and  that  the  water 
may  have  been  obtained  thence.  Robinson^  expresses  the 
opinion  that  the  transaction  took  place  at  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
tain ;  perhaps,  at  some  Tell  (hill)  near  the  permanent  fountains 
of  the  Kishon. 

But  Dean  Stanley,^  with  Van  de  Velde,  J.  L.  Porter,  Raw- 
linson,  Tristram,  and  Prof.  C.  M.  jNIead,^  speak  of  a  jDerennial 
fountain,  a  little  below  the  summit  of  Carmel,  from  which  the 
water  was  almost  certainly  obtained.  Stanley,  quoting  Van  de 
Velde.  describes  it  as  '•  a  vaulted  and  very  abundant  fountain, 
built  in  the  form  of  a  tank  with  a  few  steps  leading  down  to  it, 
just  as  one  finds  elsewhere  in  the  old  wells  or  springs  of  the 
Jewish  times."  Prof.  Mead,  at  a  recent  visit,  found  the  water 
in  this  fountain  more  than  nine  feet  in  depth,  and  suggests  that 
it  may  have  been  considerably  deeper  in  Elijah's  time.  He 
says  that  the  "trench"  dug  by  the  prophet  would  contain  some 

'  Fuerst  and  Gcscnins  say  that  the  word  rendered  "  barrels  "  in  our 
version,  means  buckets  or  pails.    Translated  "  pitcher,"  Gen.  xxiv.  14-JO. 
-  Coincidences,  p.  199. 

^  riiysical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  p.  31,  and  note. 
*  Siuai  and  Talestine,  p.  347,  and  note.  Conip.  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  13,  5. 
''  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1873,  pp.  672-696. 


436  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

twelve  to  twenty-four  quarts  only.  lie  found  upon  the  summit 
of  Carmel,  and  not  very  far  distant  from  the  aforesaid  fountain, 
"  a  rocky  surface,  artificially  smoothed,  about  eight  feet  square, 
around  the  edge  of  which  had  been  dug  a  groove  an  inch  or  two 
in  depths 

This  may  have  been  the  very  spot  where  Elijah  vindicated 
the  patriarchal  faith,  and  where  Jehovah  "  answered  by  fire " 
the  prayer  of  his  servant  the  prophet. 

"We  have  now  reviewed  carefully,  yet  of  necessity  rapidly, 
the  "  discrepancies  "  of  the  Bible.  We  have  aimed  to  include 
all  that  are  worthy  of  even  a  cursory  glance ;  and  we  trust  that 
the  candid  reader  will  feel  that,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases, 
we  have  stated,  or  at  all  events  suggested,  fair  and  adequate 
solutions.  When  we  consider  the  long  interval  of  time  —  from 
eighteen  to  thirty-three  centuries  —  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
several  books  of  scripture  were  written ;  and  that  during  all 
but  four  centuries  of  this  time  they  have  been  circulated  and 
transmitted  in  manuscript;  and  the  additional  fact  that  our 
knowledge  of  antiquity  is  exceedingly  limited  and  imperfect,  — 
many  minute,  and  sometimes  important,  circumstances  pertain- 
ing to  every  event  having  passed  u'recoverably  from  the  mem- 
ory of  mankind,  —  when  these  disadvantages  which  attend  the 
investigation  of  the  subject  are  taken  into  account,  it  surely  can 
not  be  too  much  to  believe  that,  if  in  any  instance  the  explana- 
tion adduced  should  seem  inadequate,  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  would  supply  the  missing  link,  and 
solve  the  supjioscd  discrepancy  to  the  complete  satisfaction  of 
every  reasonable  mind. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX. 


Not  to  enumerate  the  various  Harmonies  of  Scripture,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  distinct  department,  the  follow- 
ing ■would  seem  to  be  the  principal  works  occupied  wholly  or  mainly 
■with  the  consideration  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Bible. 

Among  the  patristic  writers,  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Augustine, 
and  Theodoret  devote  certain  treatises,  or  portions  thereof,  to  the 
subject.  But  from  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  to  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century  little  attention  was  bestowed  upon  this  branch 
of  sacred  literature,  and  almost  nothing  is  extant  pertaining  thereto. 

With  the  era  of  the  Reformation  a  new  impulse  was  given  to 
biblical  study,  and  the  discrepancies  received  a  considerable  share 
of  attention,  as  the  subjoined  list  will  evince. 

The  supposed  date  ofjirst  publication  is  indicated  by  full-faced 
figures.  With  reference  to  the  size  of  books  there  is  much  differ- 
ence between  ancient  and  modern  designations. 

The  first  two  works  are  of  an  introductory  character. 
Staalkopf ,  Jac.  Introductio  in  historiam  Conciliatorum  Biblicorum. 

4to.     Lipsiae,  1724. 
AlardaS)  Nicolaus.    Bibliotheca  Harmonico-Biblica,  quae  praeter 

historiam  harmonicam,  tradit  notitiam  scriptorimi  harmonicorum. 

8vo.  Hamburgi,  1725. 


Juliauus  Pomerius,  Ahp.  of  Toledo,  fl.  a.d.  680.  'AvTiKeifievwf,  sive 
contrarioruni  in  speciem  locorum  utriusque  Testamcnti,  libri  duo. 
folio,  Basileae,  1530;  Svo.     Coloniae,  1533,  1540;  Parisiis,  1556. 

The  first  edition  was  published  anonymously  ;  some  later  editions 
under  the  name  of  Julian. 

This  work  has  been  attributed  to  several  different  authors ;  but 
with  most  probability  to  Bertharius,  Abbot  of  Monte  Cassino,  who, 
according  to  Walcb,  was  killed  by  the  Saracens,  a.d.  884.  It 
includes  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  cases. 

87*  487 


438  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX. 

Althamer  Brenzius,  Andreas.  DIallage  ;  hoc  est,  Conciliatio  loco- 
rum  Scripturae,  qui  prima  facie  inter  se  pugnare  videntur.  8vo. 
Norimbergae,  1527,  1528,  1588. 

Some  sixteen  editions  were  published.  The  work  is  in  two 
parts,  and  comprises  one  hundred  and  sixty  discrepancies,  which 
are  solved  in  a  neat  and  perspicuous  manner. 

Rabe,  Ludwig.  Conciliationes  locorum  S.  Scripturae  in  specie  pug- 
nantium.     Svo.     Argentorati,  1527,  1550  ;  Noribergae,  1561. 

In  two  parts,  and  including  one  hundred  and  twenty  discre- 
pancies. The  materials  of  the  work  are  extracted  from  the 
writings  of  Augustine. 

Camirano,  Serafino.  Conciliatio  locorum  communium  Sacrae 
Scripturae,  quae  inter  se  pugnare  videntur.  2  vol.  Svo.  Parisiis, 
1556,  1559,  1576;  3  vol.   Antuerpiae,  1557—1561. 

Revised  by  Leander  de  Sancto  Martino  (originally  John  Jones), 
Duaci,  1C23. 

Baltanas  (or  Yaltanas)  Mexia.  Domingo  de,  Concordancias  de 
muchos  pasos  diflciles  de  la  divina  historla.   8vo.    Sevilla,  1556. 

Obenhein,  Christoph.  Novi  Testament!  locorum  pugnantium  eccle- 
siastica  expositio  ;  adjectae  sunt  etiam  quarundam  euangelicarum 
quaestionum  solutiones.     Svo.     Basileae,  1563. 

In  Acta  apostolorum  ecclesiastica  expositio  locorum.  Svo. 
Basileae,  1563. 

Caniara,  Marco  de  la.  Quaestionarium  conciliationis  simul  et 
expositionis  locorum  difficilium  Sacrae  ScripturaCj  in  quo  DC. 
Scripturae  loca  exponuntur.  4to  Compluti.  15S7.  —  Also, 
Venetiis,  1G03. 

Montoya,  Pedro  Lopi'z  de.  De  Concordia  Sacrarum  Scripturarum, 
'Ito.     Matriti,  1600. 

Metting^er,  Joannes.  Ilarmonia  in  utroque  Testamento  ;  sive  con- 
ciliationes eoruui,  quae  in  sacris  blblieis  sibi  invicem  adversa 
videntur.     Svo.     Lavingae,  1601. 

^harp  (Lai.  Scliarpias),  John.  Symphonia  Prophetarum  et  Apos- 
tolorum, in  qua  ordinc  chronologico  loci  Sacrae  Scripturae,  specie 
tenus  contradicentes,  conciliantur.  4to.  Gcnevac,'1625,  1639, 
1653,  1670. 

Til  is  author  solves  Bome  seven  hundred  cases  with  considerable 
acutencss. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX,  439 

Walther,  Michael.    Harmonia  Biblica ;  sive  brevis  ct  plana  concil- 

iatio  locovum  Vcteris  et  Novi  Testamenti   adparenter  sibi  con- 

tradicentium.    8vo.    Argentorati,  1626,  1630  ;  Noribergae,  1649, 

1654  (enlarged  edition,  1696). 

According   to    Horne,  this   work   is  marked  by  considerable 

learning  and  industry. 
Menasseh  Ben  Israel.     Conciliador  o  de  la  conveniencia  de  los 

Lugares  de  la  S.  Escriptura,  que  repugnantes  entre  si  parecen. 

4to.   Vol.  i.    Francofurti,  1632;  Vol.  ii.    Amsterdam,  1650. 
Conciliator,  sive  de  convenientia  locorum  S.  Scripturae,  quae 

pugnare  inter  se  videntur.     4to.     Amstelodami,  1633. 

-The  Conciliator,  a  Reconcilement  of  the  Apparent  Contra- 


dictions in  Holy  Scripture.  Translated,  with  Notes,  by  E.  H. 
Lindo.     2  vols.     8vo.     London,  1842. 

This  work,  restricted  to  the  Old  Testament,  solves  four  hundred 
and  seventy-three  cases  of  discrepancies,  by  the  usually  ingenious, 
though  sometimes  fanciful,  methods  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  rabbles. 

Thaddaeus,  Joannes.  S.  S.  Scriptura,  a  se  nee  diversa,  sibi  nee 
adversa,  hoc  est,  Conciliatorium  Biblicum,  in  quo  paria  mille  et 
supra  S.  Codicis  Locorum  specie  tenus  contradicentium,  concilian- 
tur.  12mo.  Amstelodami,  1633,  1648,  1696  ;  Francofurti,  1648, 
1687,  1696,  1702;  Londini,  1662  ;  Haffniae,  1717. 

The  Reconciler  of  the  Bible,  wherein  above  two  thousand 

seeming  contradictions  are  fully  and  plainly  reconciled.  By  J.  T., 
Minister  of  the  Gospel.     London,  1656. 

Thaddaens,  Joannes,  and  Man,  Thomas.  The  Reconciler  of  the 
Bible  inlarged,  wherein  above  three  thousand  seeming  contra- 
dictions throughout  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  fully  and 
plainly  reconciled.     By  J.  T.  and  T.  M.     folio,  London,  1662. 

Singularly  enough,  in  the  last  two  cases  the  numbers  are  made 
up  by  counting  each  discrepancy  twice  ;  so  that  the  first  of  these 
editions  really  contains  but  one  thousand  and  fifty  cases,  and  the 
second  only  some  one  thousand  five  hundred.  This  work  com- 
prises a  multitude  of  trivial  discrepancies,  and  omits  many  of  the 
more  important. 

Magri,  Domenico.  AvriXoylai,  seu  contradictiones  adpai-entes  ct 
conciliationes  Sacrae  Scripturae  ab  ipso  collectae.  12mo.  Venetiis, 
1645,  1653  ;  Parisiis,  1G65,  1675,  1685. 


440  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 

Streat,  William  H.  The  Dividing  of  the  Hooff,  or  seeming  contra- 
dictions throughout  Sacred  Scriptures,  distinguish'd,  resolv'd  and 
apply'd.     4to.     London,  1654. 

This  is  characterized  as  a  work  of  little  value. 

Mayer,  Heinrich.  Manuale  biblicum  in  quo  Sacrae  Scripturae  certa 
quaedam  testimonia  quae  sibimet  contradicere  videntur,  omnino 
concordare  docentur.     12mo.     Friburgi  Brisgoiae,  1654. 

Amoldus,  Nicolaus.  Lux  in  Tenebris  ;  seu  brevis  et  succincta  Vin- 
dicatio  simul  et  Conciliatio  locorum  Vet.  et  Novi  Testamenti.  4to. 
Franeckerae,  1662,  1665,  1680;  Francofurti  et  Lipsiae,  1698. 

A  voluminous  work,  of  some  twelve  hundred  pages,  directed 
chiefly  against  Papists  and  Socinians,  yet  discussing  incidentally 
certain  discrepancies.     It  hardly  belongs  to  our  department. 

Matthiae,  Christian.  Antilogiae  Biblicae,  sive  Conciliationes  dic- 
torum  Scripturae  Sacrae,  in  speciem  inter  se  pugnantium,  secun- 
dum seriem  Locorum  Theologicorum  in  ordinem  redactae  ;  editae 
a  Joh.  Schelhammero,  Jun.     4to.     Hamburgi,  1662,  1700,  1726. 

Santa  Cruz,  Emanuel  Fernandez  de.  Antilogiae  totius  Scripturae. 
2 torn.  fol.  Tom.  i.,  Segoviae,  1671;  Tom.  ii.,  Lugduni,  1677. 
A  2d  ed.  of  Tom.  i.,  Lugduni,  1681. 

Bleiswyck,  Jan  C.  Tan.  Bybel-balance  ende  Harmonieboeck.  4to. 
DeliTt,  1675. 

Bidder,  Franciscus.  Schrifluerlyk  licht  ouer  schynstrydende,  duy- 
stere  en  misduyde  texten  der  heiligen  schrifture.  4to.  5  delen. 
Rotterdam,  1675. 

Walch  speaks  of  this  work  as  copious  and  elaborate. 

Cuper,  Franciscus.  Conciliatio  locorum  utriusque  foederis,  quae 
contraria  esse  videntur.  In  his  "Arcana  Atheismi  revelata."  4to. 
Koterdam..  1676. 

Le  Feyre  {TmL  Faber),  Jacques  (died,  a.d.  1716).    Conciliatio  loco- 
rum Sacrae  Scrii)turac  quae  contradicere  invicem  videntur.  12ino. 
Parislis,  1683  (J)  [Fabricius  styles  this  the  second  edition],  1685. 
This  work  is  said  to  be  an  enlargement  of  that  of  Magri,  men- 
tioned above. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX.  441 

Toornburg",  K.  Concordantiae  locorum  dissonantium  Sacrae  Scrip- 
turae  [Belgice].  8vo.  Alcmariae,  1695* 

The  original  title  of  this  work  I  have  not  been  able  to  find. . 

PontaS)  Jean.  Scriptura  Sacra  ubique  sibi  constans ;  sen  DIfSciliores 
Sacrae  Scripturac  in  speciem  secuni  pugnantes,  juxta  sanctorum 
ecclesiasticorum  Patriim  theologorumque  sententiam  conciliuti. 
4to.     Parlsiis,  1698. 

One  volume  only,  relating  to  the  Pentateuch,  was  published. 
Darling  says  of  it;  "A  learned  and  able  work,  containing  three 
hundi-ed  and  thirty  questions  with  answers." 

Hcemiann,  David  (also  known  as  Bibliander).  Richtige  Harmo- 
nia  oder.Uebcreinstimmung  hundert  solcher  Spriiche  und  Oerter 
welche  in  H.  Schrifft  vorkommen  und  einander  scheinen  zuwider 
zu  lauffen.  3  Theile.  8vo.  Gorlitz,  1705  —  1710  ;  4  Theile, 
Gbrlitz,  1707—1717. 

Surenhuys,  "Willem  (Lat.  SarenliasiaS)  Gulielmus).  bibaos 
KATAAAArHS,  in  quo  secundum  Tlieologorum  Ilebraeorum  for- 
mulas allegandi,  et  modos  interpretandi  conciliantur  loca  ex  V.  in 
N.  T.  allegata.     4to.     Amstelaedami,  1713. 

Discusses  some  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  cases  of  disagree- 
ment between  citations  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  original 
passages  in  the  Old.  This  work  properly  belongs  to  a  distinct 
department. 

Barnh)  Raphael.  Critica  Sacra  examined  ;  or  an  attempt  to  show 
that  a  new  method  may  be  found  to  reconcile  the  seemingly 
glaring  variations  in  parallel  passages  of  Scripture.  8vo.  London, 
1775. 

Cooper,  Oliver  St.  John.     Four  Hundred  Texts  of  Holy  Scripture 
with  tlicir  corresponding  passages  exj)lained.     12mo.     London, 
1791. 
Includes  fifty-seven  instances  of  disagreement. 

Evauson,  Edward.  The  Dissonance  of  the  four  generally  received 
Evangelists.     Svo.     Gloucester  (England),  1792,  1S05. 


442  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX. 

Falconer,  Thomas.  Certain  principles  in  Evanson's  "  Dissonance  of 
the  four  generally  received  Evangelists "  examined.  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1810.     8vo.     Oxford,  1811. 

Strauss'  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  with  the  numerous  replies  to  it,  might, 
equally  with  the  last  two  works,  claim  a  place  in  our  catalogue. 

Fuller,  Andrew.  The  Harmony  of  Scripture  ;  or  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  various  passages  apparently  contradictory.  8vo.  London, 
1817. 

A  posthumous  tract,  comprising  thirty  cases  of  discrepancy.  See, 
also,  Fuller's  Works, Vol.  i.  pp.  G 6  7-684  (Philadelphia  ed.,  3  vols.). 

Cox,  John  Hayter.  Lectures  on  the  Harmony  of  the  Scriptures ; 
designed  to  reconcile  apparently  contradictory  passages.  Svo. 
London,  1823. 

Treats  of  nineteen  discrepancies. 

Longhurst,  S.  A  Common-place  Book,  or  Companion  to  the  New 
Testament ;  consisting  of  Illustrations  of  difficult  passages  ;  ap- 
parent Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies  reconciled.  Richmond 
and  London,  1833. 

Nork,  F.  Biblische  Mythologie  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments. 
Versuch  einer  neuen  Theorie  zu  Aufhellung  der  Dunkelheiten 
und  scheinbaren  Widei-spriiche  in  den  canonischen  Buchern  der 
Juden  und  Christen.     In  two  parts.     Svo.     Stuttgart,  1842. 

Davidson,  Dr.  Samuel.  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  Developed  and  Ap- 
plied.    8vo.     Edinburgh,  1843. 

A  portion  of  this  work,  pp.  51 G — Gil,  is  devoted  to  our  subject, 
and  resolves  some  one  hundred  and  fifteen  apparent  contradic- 
tions (Compare  reference,  p.  25,  infra,  note). 

There  are,  of  course,  many  other  works  which  bear  indirectly  upon 
the  subject.  Brief  disquisitions  arc  extant,  by  Liglitfoot,  Knatchbull, 
Ludhim  and  Whatcly.  Several  ])ain])lilets,  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  have  been  published    in  this  country,  and   in    England. 

The  above  is  believed  to  be,  for  substance,  the  literature  of  the 
Discrepancies. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 


GENESIS. 

GEN. 

PAGE 

GEN. 

PAOE 

FADE 

vi.  19,  20, 

387 

xiv.  24, 

319 

i.  2, 

139 

417 

vii.  2,  3, 

387 

XV.  13, 

416, 

418,419 

3, 

422 

4,  11,  12, 

415 

16, 

338, 

416,  419 

9,  10. 

429 

17,  24, 

415 

18, 

148, 

318,374 

11-27, 

408 

viii.  1, 

57 

xvii.  1-3 

60 

14-19, 

422 

3,  6,  7,  8, 

415 

5, 

17 

26, 

60 

159 

10,  12,  13, 

14, 

415 

6, 

395 

27, 

158 

21, 

68 

7, 

148 

31, 

i,  68 

22, 

425 

8, 

282 

ii.  2, 

395 

4161 

ix.  2, 

354 

10,  14, 

260 

3, 

395 

3, 

246' 

15, 

281 

4-7, 

408 

6, 

159 

258 

16, 

281,395 

.6, 

429 

21, 

252 

17, 

281, 

317,318 

9, 

408 

22, 

84 

24,  25, 

418 

17, 

6, 

393 

24, 

84 

303 

xviii.  10, 

14, 

74 

18, 

291 

25, 

84 

302 

20,  21, 

58 

19-22, 

408 

26, 

421 

25, 

83,  201 

iii.  4, 

6 

X.  29, 

395 

xix.  14, 

355 

5, 

158 

xi.  5, 

58 

XX.  2, 

26 

8, 

58,  76 

11, 

424 

2-18, 

317 

16, 

308 

12. 

352 

3, 

376 

22, 

60 

158 

13, 

424 

11, 

318 

iv.  1, 

421 

26, 

392 

\^' 

281 

3, 

427 

29, 

281 

xxi.  5,  5- 

-8, 

418 

4, 

81, 

427 

31, 

364 

10, 

304 

5, 

81 

32, 

392 

424 

14-18, 

418 

12,  13, 

258 

xii.  1, 

364 

23, 

244 

16, 

58 

4,     317 

,  392 

418 

24, 

242,  244 

26, 

421, 

427 

5, 

3G4 

31, 

410 

V.  1, 

158 

6,  7, 

357, 

378 

xxii.  1, 

79 

1-32, 

14 

11-20, 

317 

2, 

237 

380,  396 

2, 

159 

19, 

26 

5, 

270 

5, 

393 

xiii.  15, 

318 

6,  10, 

259 

24, 

206 

18, 

395 

12, 

56,  74 

29, 

421 

xiv.  7, 

394 

xxiii.  7, 

225 

vi.  3, 

424 

12, 

281 

xxiv.  14- 

20, 

435 

6, 

4,  06,  68 

13, 

319 

55,  60, 

281 

7, 

68, 

207 

14, 

318 

410 

XXV.  1,  2 

318 

9, 

159 

16, 

281 

5, 

305 

443 


444 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


GEN. 

PAOB 

GEN. 

PAOB 

EXOD. 

PAOK 

XXV.  6,      295, 

305, 

380 

xxxvi.  26, 

312 

ii  25, 

81 

22,  23, 

163 

31, 

395 

iii.  1, 

396,  354 

26, 

315, 

418 

XXX vii.  2, 

418 

2, 

396 

31-33, 

345 

25, 

339 

10, 

377 

xxvi.  2,  3, 

419 

28, 

339 

348 

21,  22, 

300 

6-11, 

318 

30, 

418 

iv.  18, 

354 

7, 

26 

35, 

193 

19, 

377,  424 

15,18,33, 

410 

36, 

339 

20, 

351 

34,         321, 

336, 

420 

xxxix.  2, 

172 

21, 

91 

36, 

345 

4-6, 

270 

24, 

248 

xxvii.  1-29, 

345 

20,  21,  22, 

348 

31, 

344 

36, 

315 

xl.  3,  4, 

348 

vi.3. 

421 

42-45, 

345 

15, 

348 

394 

9, 

344 

xxviii.  2, 

345 

xli.  12, 

270 

10-13, 

377 

5, 

351 

420 

46,  53, 

420 

18, 

351 

9, 

336 

54, 

425 

18-20, 

420 

19,  20-22, 

410 

56, 

367 

425 

23, 

336 

xxix.  2,  4, 

363 

57, 

367 

vii.  11,12, 

120 

5, 

351 

xlii.  1-5, 

367 

20,  21,  22, 

24,       434 

12, 

281 

7-20, 

434 

viii.  1, 

301 

20,  21, 

421 

30-34, 

434 

7, 

120 

27-30, 

421 

xliii.  3-13, 

434 

15, 

89,90 

30,  31,     97 

286 

421 

11,  15, 

367 

i    20, 

126 

XXX.  16, 

314 

>iliv.  16-34, 

434 

27, 

301 

18, 

315 

xlv.  6, 

420 

425 

32, 

89 

20, 

316 

xlvi.  3,  4, 

345 

ix.  3,  6, 

428 

23,  24, 

315 

7, 

384 

12, 

39 

25, 

421 

8-26, 

389 

19-21, 

428 

xxxi.  11,  13, 

74 

15, 

384 

,  420 

34, 

89,  90 

17, 

295 

18,  20, 

420 

X.  1, 

89 

41, 

421 

21, 

384 

7, 

205 

53, 

242 

27, 

389 

25,  26, 

301 

xxxii.  3, 

415 

xlvii.  9, 

418 

xi.  1, 

301 

28, 

411 

31, 

345 

3, 

248,  302 

30, 

73 

xlviii.  1, 

345 

10, 

89 

xxxiii.  18-20, 

357 

5, 

305 

xii.  2, 

412 

19, 

378 

8,  10, 

363 

5, 

433 

xxxiv.  14,  17 

281 

15,  16, 

225 

7, 

377,  378 

XXXV.  2,  4, 

378 

xlix.  9, 

127 

9, 

433 

8, 

379 

10, 

149 

15, 

408,416 

10, 

411 

33, 

345 

31-33,. 

301 

11, 

305 

35,  36, 

300 

14,  15. 

400 

EXODUS. 

38, 

342 

10-19, 

307 

i.  17, 

292 

40, 

418 

21-26, 

367 

1 8-20, 

290 

43,  48, 

260 

27, 

420 

20, 

292 

49, 

305 

xxxvi.  2, 

321 

,336 

ii.  10, 

315 

xiii.  3, 

408 

3, 

336 

14,  15, 

424 

13, 

224 

6.  8, 

415 

16,21, 

339 

21,  22, 

430 

12, 

352 

,394 

i       10-21, 

355 

xiv.  7,  9, 

428 

20, 

321 

18, 

354 

13,  30. 

363 

24, 

321 

,337 

1      22, 

338 

31, 

120 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


445 


EXOD. 
XV.  3, 

6, 

13-17, 

20, 

25,  26, 
xvi.  I, 

2,3, 

13,  14, 

16, 

23, 

31, 

34, 

35, 
xvii.  1-7, 

9, 

14, 
xviii.  2-6, 

5, 

7, 

13-26, 

23,  24, 

25, 

27, 
xix.  2, 

11, 

12,  13,  17, 
18, 
19, 

21-24, 
22, 

XX.  1-26, 
3,  5, 
4,5, 
5. 
8, 
11, 
12, 

13,  14, 
15, 
16, 
17, 
24, 

xxi.  1-36, 
2, 
7,11, 

14. 

16, 

20,  21, 
2.3-25, 
29,  30, 
xxii.  1-31, 
8,9, 


92 
207 
396 
309 
236 
427 
340 
427 
343 
395 
431 
396 

342,  427 
374 
395 
207 
351 

354,  409 
225 
284 
350 

350,  412 
355 
409 
376 
432 

376,  431 
76 
432 
409 
221 
225 
226 
78,  84,  86 

233,  395 
56,  234,  416 
287 
255 
300 
290 

249,  282 
427 
221 
303 
304 
255 
302 
298 
299 
261 
221 
62 


EXOD. 
xxii.  18, 

21, 

25, 

28, 

29, 
xxiii.  1-33, 

3, 

10,  11, 

14-16, 

16, 

31, 

33, 
xxiv.  3-8, 

5, 

9,  10, 

13, 

18, 
XXV.  10, 

15, 

1 8,  20,  34, 
xxvii.  1, 

8, 
xxviii.  1, 
xxix.  1— i6, 

14, 

18,  36, 

45, 
XXX.  12-14, 

13, 
xxxi.  15, 

17, 

18, 
xxxii.  20, 

26,  27, 

33, 
xxxiii.  3, 

7, 

11, 

14,  15,  17, 

20, 

23, 
xxxiv.  5-7, 

6,  7, 

10-27, 

1 8-23, 

20, 

28, 

33-35, 
XXXT.  12, 
xxxvii.  1, 
xxxviii.  8, 

26, 


PAOZ 

307 

302 

306 

62 

224 

221 

296 

297 

387 

412 

282 

221 

220 

409 

73 

395 

351 

407 

242 

226 

427 

427,  428 

409 

236 

114 

235 

102 

345 

385 

234 

56 

63 

429 

285 

207 

63 

396 

73 

63 

73 

73,  75 

59 

82 

220 

387 

224 

221 

355 

407 

407 

239 

345,411 


EXOD. 

xl.  17, 
20, 


PAOB 

.396 
390,  396 


LEVITICUS. 

i.  1-17,  236 

5,  8,  11,  356 
ii.  1-16,  236 
iii.  1-17,  236 

2,  219 
iv.  1-35,  236 

3,  114 

14,  22,  23,  241 
26,  236 

V.  1-19,  236 

15,  18,  245 
vi.  1-30,  236 
vii.  1-38,  236 
xi.  13-19,  391 

21.  23,  246 
xii.  3,                     12,  13 

6,  7,  230 
xvi.  29,  416 
xvii.  3,  4,  367 

11,  236 

13,  220 

xviii.  1-30,  281 

5,  104 

16,  292 
21,  237,  266 
22-24,  266 

25,  28,  266 

26,  305 
xix.  13,  300 

26,  244 
34,  305 

XX.  1-27,  281 

2,  237 

21,  292 
23,                 266,  267 

27,  307 
xxii.  12,  283,  284 
xxiii.  1-44,  387 

18,  19,  384 

27-29,  223 

32,  416 

33-39,  223 

42,  43,  343 
xxv.  4,  6,  20, 21, 22,  297 

32-34,  395 

39-41,  303 

44,  302 
46,       298,  303 


M6 


INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


LEV. 

PAGE 

NUM. 

PAGE 

NUM. 

PA  OB 

XXV.  47-54, 

303 

xiii.  26, 

373 

xxvi.  38,  40, 

384 

x.xvi.  9, 

81 

29, 

338 

62, 

382 

30,  44, 

68 

xiv.  12, 

322 

64,  65, 

357 

xxvii.  26, 

225 

25, 

365 

xxvii.  12, 

373 

30, 

63 

14, 

345 

NUMBERS. 

33, 

427 

xxviii.  1-31, 

387 

i.  2,  3, 

345 

358 

45, 

365 

405 

16-19, 

433 

10, 

305 

XV.  24, 

241 

27,  30, 

384 

23, 

385 

32,  36, 

234 

235 

xxix.  1-40, 

387 

45, 

358 

39, 

250 

5, 

236 

46,         344 

358 

411 

xvi.  12-14, 

353 

xxxi.  8, 

366 

49, 

358 

18-24, 

353 

10, 

406 

ii.  2,  3, 

150 

,378 

24-27, 

353 

19, 

255 

10, 

352 

31-33, 

352 

xxxii.  8, 

350 

17, 

366 

32, 

353 

13, 

95 

32, 

345 

35, 

352 

19,  32, 

375 

iii.  6, 

409 

40, 

333 

41, 

411 

10, 

333 

xviii.  12,  13, 

296 

xxxiii.  3, 

427 

12,  13, 

224 

15, 

224 

296 

19-36, 

371 

27,  28, 

419 

16,  17, 

224 

30-33, 

372 

29, 

352 

19, 

296 

38, 

363 

39, 

382 

21,  24, 

289 

44-48, 

372 

iv.  3,  4-15, 

422 

XX.  1, 

373 

44-49, 

371 

5,  6. 

242 

10, 

279 

xxxiv.  10-12, 

374 

15,  20, 

94 

12, 

248, 

345 

XXXV.  2,  7, 

288 

24-26, 

422 

13, 

374 

2-8, 

395 

31-33, 

422 

18-21, 

335 

4,  5, 

388 

36, 

419 

19,  20, 

335 

13, 

385 

V.  11-31, 

258 

27,  28, 

363 

14, 

375 

vi.  5, 

246 

xxi.  3, 

405 

19, 

256 

23, 

356 

8, 

226 

31, 

261 

vii.  12, 

150 

10-20, 

371 

xxxvi.  8, 

283,  284 

viii.  14, 

409 

11-35, 

372 

24,  25,  26, 

422 

16-20, 

372 

DEUTERONOMY. 

X.  12, 

372 

20,  21, 

373 

i.  1, 

375 

14, 

150 

xxii.  1 

372 

6.  9,  14, 

357 

21, 

366 

20,  21, 

69 

9-13,  15, 

350 

29, 

354 

22, 

69 

333 

20,  21, 

338 

29-31, 

430 

xxiii.  10, 

208 

22, 

350 

2"J-32, 

355 

19, 

63 

37, 

248 

33, 

366 

372 

xxiv.  2,  7,  16 

394 

39, 

161 

xi.  4-6, 

340 

20. 

208, 

394 

ii.  4,  8, 

335 

8, 

431 

25, 

366 

7, 

340 

16, 

378 

412 

XXV.  1-3, 

255 

266 

14, 

342 

24-26, 

378 

4, 

95 

19, 

365 

xii.  1, 

3:39 

5,  7,  8, 

285 

26, 

373 

3, 

248 

6-14, 

385 

28,  29, 

335 

4, 

378 

9, 

382 

30, 

89,91 

8, 

76 

11-13, 

68 

iii.  4,  14, 

411 

16, 

372 

xxvi.  10, 

352 

27, 

373 

xiii.  1,  2, 

350 

11. 

353 

iv.  10-15, 

376 

16, 

395 

14, 

385 

12, 

76 

INDEX  OP  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 


447 


DEUT. 

PAOB 

DEUT. 

PAGE 

DEUT. 

PAOB 

iv.  15, 

73 

XV.  19, 

225,  296 

xxxii.  51, 

345, 

373 

23, 

226 

20, 

296 

xxxiii.  2, 

60 

431 

41, 

385 

xvi.  1-7, 

377 

xxxiv.  1, 

373 

410 

V.  2,  5, 

357 

1-16, 

387 

7, 

354 

15, 

234 

2,7, 

433 

10-12, 

355 

17, 

256, 265 

8, 

416 

26, 

76 

xvii.  2,  3,  7, 

225 

JOSHUA. 

vi.  4, 

60 

9, 

284 

i.  11, 

394 

416 

13, 

242 

14,  15, 

229 

14, 

375 

16, 

82 

xviii.  1,  7, 

356 

ii.  4,  5, 

290 

vii.  1,  7, 

344 

10, 

244,  308 

22, 

416 

1-4, 

266 

10-12, 

195 

iii.  1,  2, 

416 

2-4, 

389 

11, 

308 

3-6, 

366 

16, 

92 

21,  22, 

148 

iv.  19, 

394, 

427 

22, 

403 

xix.  15, 

117 

20, 

394 

viii.  2, 

56 

17, 

284 

V.  5,  7, 

260 

3,  15, 

340 

XX.  11,  15, 

258 

9, 

394 

ix.  3, 

403 

16-18, 

258,  266 

10-12, 

427 

9,  18, 

351 

19, 

279 

13,  14, 

225 

21, 

429 

xxi.  2, 

284 

vi.  24,  26, 

406 

X.  3-5, 

407 

11-14, 

263 

vii.  1, 

312 

5, 

390 

15, 

295 

4, 

344 

6, 

363,  372 

17, 

304 

24,  25, 

237 

6-8, 

409 

18-21, 

287 

24-26, 

84,  85 

7, 

372 

xxii.  3, 

204 

viii.  3-9, 

381 

8,9, 

356 

13-21, 

258 

12,  13, 

381 

16, 

166 

xxiii.  3,  4, 

235 

28, 

403 

17, 

81 

7, 

271 

34,  35, 

347 

22, 

344 

19, 

306 

X.  15,  21, 

374 

xi.  2,  7, 

357 

20, 

305 

23,  26, 

405 

24, 

374 

xxiv.  1,  2, 

263,  292 

28, 

186 

25, 

344 

xxiv.  7, 

303 

36,  37, 

405 

30, 

394 

16, 

84,  238 

38,  39, 

405 

xii.  15,16, 

367 

XXV.  5, 

292 

40, 

324 

17,  18, 

296 

17,  18, 

94 

42, 

403 

19, 

288 

xxvii.  1-26. 

281 

43, 

374 

24. 

220 

14,15, 

347 

xi.  1,  10, 

405 

27, 

219 

15, 

226 

11, 

186 

xiii.  1-3,  120 

121,  126 

xxix.  18, 

325 

14,  15, 

324 

3, 

56 

20, 

78 

16,  17, 

376 

404 

6-11, 

225 

XXX.  1, 

134 

18, 

403 

xiv.  7, 

246 

6, 

166 

19, 

338 

12-18, 

391 

16, 

431 

20, 

8f 

,"90 

19, 

246 

xxxi.  2, 

354 

21, 

322, 

405 

21, 

305 

9, 

363 

22, 

322 

22-26, 

224 

16,  17, 

148 

23, 

376, 

404 

26, 

251 

25, 

303 

xii.  7, 

375 

404 

27, 

288 

26, 

363,  391 

8, 

376 

404 

28^  29, 

289 

xxxii.  4, 

76,  83,  97 

10, 

348 

406 

XV.  3, 

305 

11, 

03 

10-2.3, 

404 

4,  11, 

356 

13,14, 

340 

12. 

348 

403 

12, 

303,  304 

39, 

60 

14, 

405 

448 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


JOSH. 

PAGE 

JOSH. 

PAGE  1  JUDG. 

PAGE 

xii.  16, 

348, 

403 

xxiv.  1, 

377  1 ix.  1-57, 

323 

21,23, 

348, 

405 

14, 

344, 

394  1   8, 

340 

xiii.  1, 

404 

23, 

344 

13, 

251 

1-6, 

376 

26, 

377 

32,  33, 

426 

9-12, 

374 

31, 

420 

x.  1-18, 

323 

25, 

365 

32, 

357 

3, 

411 

30, 

385 

33, 

420 

4, 

385 

411 

xiv.  1-15,  5, 

412 

xi.  1-40, 

323 

6, 

323 

JUDGES. 

17,  18, 

335 

12,  13, 

405 

i.  1,  1-36, 

403 

26, 

420 

15, 

395 

1-19, 

150 

30-40, 

237 

238 

XV.  1-63, 

412 

8, 

406 

37-40, 

240 

8. 

375 

9-11, 

405 

xii.  1-6, 

370 

13, 

150 

395 

10, 

321 

xiii.  22, 

73 

13-19, 

322 

11-13, 

405 

XV.  14,  15, 

142 

14, 

321 

11-15, 

322 

xvii.  9, 

336 

15-17, 

405 

16, 

355, 

406 

xviii.  1,  2,  8, 

368 

21-32, 

387 

17, 

405 

27,  28, 

406 

26-32, 

369 

19, 

55 

29,  . 

410 

33, 

368 

20, 

321 

30, 

338 

42, 

369 

21, 

406 

xix.  29, 

257 

63,    348 

404 

406 

22, 

404 

XX.  15,  46,47 

387 

xvi.  1-10, 

412 

22-25, 

348 

403 

2, 

395 

26, 

395 

RUTH. 

10, 

348 

27, 

405 

i.  1,  21, 

335 

xvii.  1-18, 

412 

28, 

324 

H, 

348 

29, 

403, 

404 

1  SAMUEL. 

12, 

348 

,404 

30,  33, 

324 

i.  1, 

335 

14, 

404 

34, 

344 

9, 

396 

15-18, 

369 

35, 

324 

11, 

239 

xviii.  1, 

377 

ii.  1-3, 

266 

21,  22, 

428 

1-28, 

412 

1-6, 

403 

ii.  10, 

207 

6, 

412 

7, 

344 

22, 

239 

28, 

375 

8,  9, 

403 

23,  24, 

335 

xix.  1, 

3G9 

22, 

324 

30,  31, 

63,  67 

1-6, 

388 

23, 

376 

iii.  3, 

396 

1-51, 

412 

iii.  1-7, 

266 

13, 

335 

2-6, 

373 

2,  4, 

324 

21, 

377 

2-7, 

369 

9, 

150 

iv.  3, 

377 

9, 

369 

13, 

406 

vi.  6, 

89 

40,  41,  40- 

48, 

.308 

20,  21,  26, 

2.i5 

19, 

14,  92 

47,    308 

,  406 

,  410 

iv.  4, 

308 

,  309 

vii.  13, 

344 

XX.  7,8, 

.•JS5 

5, 

308 

15, 

425 

xxi.  2,  3, 

395 

11, 

354 

355 

viii.  2, 

352 

23,  24, 

308 

14, 

308 

^, 

229 

,  425 

41, 

395 

21, 

255 

7, 

229 

43, 

376 

24, 

405 

19, 

359 

xxii.  2, 

344 

V.  31, 

204 

ix.  1, 

351 

7, 

375 

vi.  33, 

406 

3, 

204 

11-34, 

344 

vii.  1-25, 

323 

16, 

344 

xxiii.  5, 

404 

viii.  1-35, 

323 

17, 

3!J9 

16, 

148 

10-12, 

406 

20, 

204 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTUUE   CITATIONS. 


449 


ISAM, 

PAGE  ] 

1  SAM. 

X.  1, 

412 

xviii.  25.  27, 

1-9, 

379 

xix.  24,             358 

5, 

344 

XX.  1, 

8, 

425  1 

42, 

12, 

412  ^ 

xxi.  1, 

20,  21,  24, 

359 

9, 

24,  25, 

395  1 

12-15, 

xi.  2, 

264  ! 

xxii.  3,  4, 

14,  15, 

412 

425  < 

xxiii.  19, 

xii.  1, 

425  1 

xxiv.  6, 

3, 

412  ' 

XXV.  25, 

11, 

323 

xxvi.  1,  9, 

17, 

229 

19, 

xiii.  1,  2, 

402 

xxvii.3-6. 

5, 

344 

xxviii.  6, 

8-11, 

425 

15,  17,  19, 

12,  13, 

345 

18, 

14, 

222 

19, 

17, 

344 

xxix.  4, 

xiv.  3, 

320 

6-9, 

18,  37, 

360 

XXX.  1, 

49, 

352 

12,  13, 

50,  51, 

351 

17, 

XV.  2,  3, 

9 

2,  93 

xxxi.  2, 

2-8, 

394 

3-5, 

6, 

355 

6, 

7,8, 

403 

10,  11, 

63 

2  SAMUEL 

18, 

94 

i.  6-10, 

22, 

236 

ii.  4, 

29, 

63,  98 

8, 

35, 

358 

10,11, 

xvi.  2, 

99 

iii.  2-5, 

6-11, 

385 

3, 

13, 

411 

14, 

14, 

142 

V.  3, 

14-23, 

360 

S, 

18, 

362 

6,9, 

21, 

331 

,361 

14-16, 

21-23, 

360 

21, 

xvii.  12-31, 

360 

vi.  10, 

15, 

331 

23, 

25,  34-36, 

362 

viii.  1, 

39, 

80 

,362 

2, 

42, 

362 

3,                     2J 

54, 

370 

4,  13, 

55-58, 

360 

16-18, 

56, 

362 

17,                 32t 

xviii.  1-5, 

360 

18, 

2, 

331 

ix.  6, 

9,  10, 

360 

X.  5, 

10,  11, 

142 

6, 

PA  OB 

382 
,  412 
114 
244 
320 
370 
332 
364 
26 
26 
315 
26 
80 
332 
359 
193 
345 
199 
333 
332 
403 
413 
403 
352 
359 
360 


359 
411 
360 
400 
295 
333 
382 
411 
400 
370 
332 
430 
339 
385 
369 
264 
25.  374 
382 
332 
332 
333 
225 
406 
320 


2  SAM. 

PAOS 

X.   18, 

382 

xi.  5-7, 

370 

17, 

347 

xii.  9, 

347 

23, 

193 

24, 

295 

.  31, 

264 

xiii.  5, 

359 

8, 

433 

xiv.  27, 

380 

33, 

225 

XV.  7, 

393 

xvii.  25, 

316,  320 

xviii.  5, 

270 

6, 

369 

8, 

207 

15, 

331 

18, 

380 

XX.  23-26, 

332 

xxi.  1, 

241 

2, 

338 

8, 

238,  385 

9,  14, 

238 

18, 

373 

19, 

336 

xxiii.  8, 

383 

8-39, 

334 

11, 

428 

27, 

312 

xxiv.  1, 

79,  333,  334 

9, 

389 

10, 

222 

13, 

393 

14, 

96 

24, 

390 

1  KINGS. 

i.  39, 

412 

ii.  5-9, 

256 

11, 

393 

19, 

225 

27, 

68 

iii.  2,  3, 

323 

7, 

270 

iv.  26, 

383 

31, 

351 

v.  11, 

385 

13,  15, 

362 

16, 

382,  383 

vi.  1, 

426,  427 

2, 

382,  383 

14, 

396 

88* 


450 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


1  KINGS, 
vi.  17, 

37,  38, 
vii.  14, 

15,  20, 

16,  26, 
24, 
42, 
48, 

viii.  9, 

12, 

22,  23, 

46, 

65,  66, 
ix.  22, 

23, 

26-28, 

28, 
X.  1, 

19,  20, 

22, 
xi.  1-3, 

3, 

14, 

32,  36, 
xii.  4, 

21, 

25, 
xiv.  12-17, 
XV.  2, 

3, 

5, 

8, 

10, 

10,  13,  14, 

16, 

20, 

32,  33, 
xvi.  8,  10, 

15, 

20, 

21,  22,  23, 

29, 
xvii.  1, 

7, 

22, 
xviii.  1, 

5, 

26-29, 

27, 

32-35, 

40, 
xix.  3,  8, 


PACK 

383 
427 
339 
383 
382 
431 
383 
384 
390 
101 
231 
159 
223 
362 
382 
378 

383,  395 
80 
226 
378 
295 
390 
333 
387 
362 
387 
375 
375 

317,  323 

222,  317 
222 
323 

396,  398 
323 
398 
373 
398 
399 
402 
364 
402 
396 
415 
435 

201,355 
415 
435 
232 
276 
435 
265 
379 


1  1  KINGS. 

xix.  II,  12, 

15,  16, 
xxi.  1, 

13, 

19, 
xxii.  15, 

1 9-23, 

37,  38, 

41, 

49, 

51, 


PAOB 

58 
339 
364 
356 
364 
276 

98 

364 

396 

346 

396, 398 


2  KINGS 
i.  10, 

17, 
ii.  11, 

12, 

14, 

23,  24, 
iii.  1, 

18,  19, 
iv.  33, 

34, 
vi.  19, 

23,  24, 
viii.  7-15, 

16, 


17, 

18, 

25, 

26, 

27, 

29, 
ix.  1-10, 

25, 

26, 

27, 

28, 

29, 
X.  13,  14, 

36, 
xi.  3-5, 

4-19, 

5-7, 
xii.  1, 

13-14, 
xiii.  1, 

10, 

21, 

23, 
xiv.  1, 

2, 


355 
400 
216 
257 
355 
270 
398 
279 
231 
355 
276 
344 
339 
401 
319 
320 
398 
319,320,398 
355 
359 
339 
364 

356,364 

364, 365 
3G5 
398 
319 
400 
370 

350,  351 
370 

398,  400 
434 
400 

398,  400 

201 

81 

398 

399 


2  KINGS. 

PA  as 

xiv.  3,  7, 

271 

17, 

399 

23, 

399,401 

29, 

191 

XV.  1, 

399,  401 

2, 

399 

8, 

401 

27, 

399,  402 

30, 

399, 401 

32, 

399,  402 

33, 

401,  402 

xvi.  2, 

399 

5,  7,  9, 

319 

10-16,  15, 

319 

20, 

364 

xvii.  1, 

399,  402 

8, 

77 

34,  41, 

242 

xviii.  2, 

399 

14-16, 

340 

25, 

205 

xix.  85, 

363 

XX.  1,  4,  5,  6, 

63,  64 

xxi.  17, 

351 

xxii.  3, 

401 

14,  15, 

309 

xxiii.  4, 

401 

5-12, 

348 

30, 

349, 376 

34, 

335, 349 

xxiv.  6, 

346,374 

7, 

344 

8,  12, 

400 

13, 

412 

14,  16, 

384 

17, 

349,  352 

XXV.  1,  6, 

377 

7, 

363 

8, 

393 

13-17, 

412 

17, 

382 

19, 

383 

27, 

400 

1  CHRONICLES. 

i.  34, 

416 

36, 

352 

41, 

312 

51, 

352 

ii.  1,  3-9, 

416 

6, 

312,351 

10, 

336 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTUEE   CITATIONS. 


451 


I  CHRON. 
ii.  13, 

13-15, 

16, 

17, 

18, 

19, 

22,  23, 

50, 

53, 
iii.  1, 

5-8, 

15, 

16,  19, 

22, 
iv.  28-31, 
V.  1,  2, 
vi.  16-27, 

20, 

22, 

22-28, 

28, 

31, 

33, 

69, 
vii.  6, 

15,  16, 
viii.  33, 

38, 
ix.  1-34, 

39, 
X.  6, 

13, 

14, 
xi.  10, 

11, 

11-47, 

13, 

26, 

29, 
xiii.  3, 
xiv.  3-7, 

12, 
XV.  17,  18,  21, 
xvi.  34, 
xvii.  4-6,  12, 
xviii.  1, 

3, 

4,  12, 

16, 
xix.  6,  7, 

18, 
XX.  3, 


PAOB 

316 
385 
316 
320 
323 
324 

385,  411 
323 
368 
333 
332 

349, 352 
352 
385 
373 
305 
336 

338,  351 
351 
353 
352 
353 
353 
368 
384 
351 

351,352 
32 
337 
351 
360 
345 
359 
334 
383 
334 
428 
334 
312 
360 
332 
430 
339 
92 
331 
369 
25 
382 
320 
320 
382 
264 


1  CHRON. 
XX.  4, 

5, 
xxi.  1, 

5, 

11,  12 
25, 

xxiii.  3, 

7, 

8, 

24, 
xxiv.  3-6, 
xxv.  3, 
xxvi.  21,  22, 

30, 
xxviii.  3, 

^' 
xxix.  15, 

22, 

2  CHRON 
ii.  6, 
10, 
14, 

..  *S' 
iii.  1, 

4, 

15, 
iv.  3, 

5, 

13, 

19, 
vii.  10, 

12,  16, 
19,  20, 

viii.  10, 

18, 
ix.  1, 

21, 

25, 
xiii.  2, 
xiv.  1, 

3,5, 
XV.  16, 

19, 
xvi.  1, 

4, 

7-12, 
xix.  7, 
XX.  35,  36, 

36,  37, 
xxi.  16,  17, 

18,  19, 


389 


222 


4-12, 


PAGE  I 

373  I 
336 
333 
,  390 
393' 
390 
422 
338 
351 
422 

68 
385 
351 
375 
331 

71 
177 
412 


ICLES. 

102 
385 
339 
382 
396 
382 
383 
431 
382 
383 
384 
223 
102 
102 
382 
383 
308 
378 
383 
317 
398 
323 
323 
398, 399 
399 
373 
323 
81 
346 
378 
346 
398 


2  CHRO^f. 

xxii.  1, 

2, 

6, 

8, 

9, 
xxiii.  1-20, 

4,  5, 
xxiv.  14, 
xxvi.  10, 
xxviii.  1, 

5,  16,  20, 
21,  24, 
27, 

XXX.  2,  3, 

9, 

17-20,  26, 
xxxi.  17, 
xxxii.  23,  27 
xxxiii.  5,  6, 

11-17, 

15, 
xxxiv.  3, 

3-7, 
XXXV.  13, 

18, 

24, 
xxxvi.  4, 

6, 

9, 

10, 

13, 


PAOB 

319,346 
398 
359 
319 
304 
350 
370 
434 
352 
399 
319 
319 
304 
340 

97 
340 
422 
340 
308 
351 
348 
348 
401 
433 
340 
376 
335 
374 
400 
352 

89 


-29, 


EZRA. 

i.  9,  10,  11, 
ii.  1-39, 

2-60, 

3-35, 

5, 

6-65, 

30-39, 

69, 
iii.  2, 

4, 
V.  1, 
vi.  14, 
ix.  1,2, 
X.  3-17, 


383 
409 
352 
385 
380 
381 
390 
381 
352 
417 
352 
352 
389 
412 


NEHEMIAH. 

vii. 7-42,  409 

7-62,  352 

10,  380 


452 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIOXS. 


32, 


NEH. 

vii.  11-67, 

32, 

70-72, 
viii.  17, 
ix.  17, 
X.  1-28, 

9-13, 

14-27, 
xi.  3-36, 
xii.  1, 

1-". 

8,  9, 
xiii.  23-30 


JOB. 

i.  1, 

6,7, 

19, 
ij.  7, 

10, 
iii.  10, 

13, 

18, 
vii.  9, 
viii.  4, 
ix.  10 

22, 
X.21, 
xi.7, 

12, 
xii.  6, 
xiii.  23, 
xiv.  4, 

12, 

21,  22, 
XV.  14, 
xvi.  9,  12-14, 
xix.  10, 

17, 
xxi.  7,  8, 

9,  14, 
xxii.  23,  24, 
x.Kiv.  .5,  6,  12, 

20,  24, 
xxvi.  5, 

7, 
xxvii.  13,  14,  22 
xxxi.  18, 
XXX  vi.  14, 
xxxviii.  1, 
xiii.  7-9, 

12.    172.1 


PAOB 

381 
403 
381 
417 
82 
409 
387 
385 
337 
352 
390 
387 
412 


PSALMS. 


116, 


159 
362 
347 
172 
279 
347 
191 
197 
200 
347 

73 

88 
197 

72 
161 
180 
114 
161 
200 
88,  190 
161 
207 
205 
347 
180 
181 
174 
182 
181 
195 
429 
,  182 
161 
180 

76 

162 

75,  208 


i.  3, 
ii.  8, 

9, 

11, 
V.  4, 

6, 
vi.  5, 
vii.  8, 

11, 

ix.  11, 

17, 

X.1, 

xi.  6, 
xiv.  2,  3, 
xvii.  14, 
xviii.  11, 
xix.  1, 
xxiv.  2, 

3,  4, 
xxvi.  7, 
XXX.  5, 
xxxii.  1, 
xxxiv.  Title,    318, 

10, 

21, 
XXXV.  6,  8, 
xxxvii.  3, 

9, 

20, 

21, 

25, 

34, 

36, 

37, 

38,  205, 

xl.  5, 

6, 
xii.  1, 
xiii.  9, 
xliv.  Title, 

1-3, 

23, 
xiv.  Title, 

2 
xlvi'.  Title, 

1, 
xlvii.-xlix.  Titles, 
xlix.  10,  178, 

1.  6 

13,  14, 

21, 


PSALMS. 

PAOB 

PAGE 

1.  22, 

207 

173 

Ii.  2, 

166 

302 

5, 

161 

207 

9, 

207 

241 

16, 

235 

76 

17, 

207 

205 

liii.  5, 

242 

193 

Iv.  15, 

271 

228 

23, 

180 

82 

Iviii.  3, 

161 

103 

lix.  4, 

114 

214 

Ix.  Title, 

382 

70 

Ixii.  12, 

97 

209 

Ixix.  24,  27, 

271 

159 

28, 

207 

180 

Ixxi.  17, 

73 

101 

Ixxii.  17, 

115 

72 

Ixxiii.  7, 12, 

180 

429 

11, 

58 

1.59 

16-18, 

181 

73 

24, 

197 

95 

27, 

204 

221 

28, 

70,73 

332 

Ixxiv.  12, 

251 

173 

l.xxvi.  2, 

103 

180 

Ixxviii.  55, 

283 

271 

58, 

78 

173 

69, 

215 

205 

lxxxi.l2, 

77 

204 

Ixxxiii.  15, 

209 

300 

17,                 209,  271 

177 

Ixxxv.  5, 

95 

205 

Ixxxvi.  2, 

159 

206 

Ixxxvii.  2,  3, 

228 

208 

Ixxxviii.  5,6,11 

,12,  197 

208 

xc.  2, 

60 

73 

xci.  4, 

16,63 

1.52 

xcii.  9, 

203 

296 

15, 

83 

16 

xciv.  5, 

207 

3.53 

23, 

203 

283 

xcvi.  4,  5, 

433 

57 

xcvii.  2, 

101 

353 

7, 

60 

115 

c.  2, 

241 

353 

cii.  25,  26, 

215 

70 

ciii.  8,  9, 

95 

3.53 

civ.  5, 

215 

204 

15, 

251 

201 

22, 

426 

235 

30, 

417 

58 

35, 

206 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


453 


PSALMS. 

PAOK 

PROV. 

PAOB 

ECCL. 

PAoa 

cvi.  18, 

352 

xiv.  21, 

296 

viii.  14, 

172 

33, 

343 

32, 

214 

15, 

250 

cix.  6-10, 

271 

XV.  6, 

174 

ix.  5,  6, 

193 

12,  13,  18,  19, 

271 

xvi.  7, 

178 

10, 

188 

cxii.  2,  3, 

174 

xvii.  15, 

306 

xi.  9, 

250 

cxv.  17, 

195 

22, 

250 

xii.  7, 

184 

cxix.  110, 

221 

xviii.  6, 

261 

147, 148, 

19 

22, 

291 

CANTICLES 

155, 

214 

xix.  9, 

204 

V.  10,  16, 

127 

156, 

82 

XX.  1, 

251 

vi.  8, 

390 

176, 

221 

9, 

159 

viii.  6, 

78 

cxxi.  4, 

57 

xxi.  28, 

204 

cxxiii.  1, 

103 

xxii.  1, 

176 

ISAIAH. 

cxxviii.  3, 

230 

15, 

161 

,278 

i.  11-13, 

235 

cxxxii.  13, 

228 

24, 

245 

13, 

233 

cxxxvii.  8,  9, 

272 

xxiii.  29-32, 

251 

15, 

89 

cxxxviii.  6, 

81 

xxiv.  24, 

306 

16, 

166 

cxxxix.  2-4, 

56 

XXV.  27, 

248 

20, 

207 

7-10, 

58 

xxvi.  4,  5, 

278 

28,                  203 

206 

21, 

306 

xxvii.  2, 

247 

iii.  13, 

103 

22,                  273 

,306 

4, 

78 

V.  20,  23, 

306 

cxliii.  2, 

228 

22 

278 

vi.  1, 

73 

cxlv.  3, 

72 

xxviii.  1, 

242 

10, 

264 

8, 

78 

13, 

221 

vii.  15,  16, 

161 

9,                  78,  9 

2,  97 

14, 

89,90 

viii.  9, 

207 

18, 

70 

XXX.  8,  9, 

175 

ix.  1,2, 

151 

20,                  203 

205 

30, 

354 

6,  7, 

118 

cxlvi.  4, 

195 

xxxi.  4,  5, 

233 

17-21, 

399 

cxivii.  5 

72 

6,  7, 

231 

X.  5, 
xiii.  9, 

98 
205 

PROVERBS. 

ECCLESIASTES. 

xiv.  9,                191 

,  195 

i.  22, 

72 

i.  4, 

215 

10, 

195 

26, 

96 

9,  10, 

432 

xxiv.  23, 

433 

28, 

71 

15, 

428 

xxvi.  10, 

181 

29,  30, 

72 

18, 

176 

2.54 

14,  19, 

200 

iii.  13,                176, 

254 

ii.  2, 

230 

20, 

82 

15, 

2.54 

13, 

254 

xxvii.  4, 

82 

17, 

176 

13, 

176 

,  234 

xxix.  20, 

206 

iv.  18, 

197 

iii.  1,  4, 

2.50 

XXX.  10, 

177 

V.  4, 

325 

18-20, 

184 

26, 

433 

18,  19, 

295 

20, 

199 

xxxviii.  18, 

193 

vi.  34, 

78 

vi.  8, 

254 

xxxix.  2,  6, 

340 

viii.  11, 

176 

vii.  1, 

176 

xl.  4, 

428 

17, 

71 

3,4, 

250 

5, 

181 

X.  13, 

175 

9, 

245 

25, 

159 

27, 

180 

13, 

428 

28,                       56,  72 

xi.31, 

182 

15, 

178 

204 

xiii.  1, 

139 

xii.  21, 

172 

16,  17, 

233 

3, 

116 

22, 

290 

20, 

159 

xliii.  13, 

18 

xiii.  21, 

180 

29, 

161 

19, 

432 

22, 

280 

viii.  2, 

292 

xliv.  9,  10,17, 

433 

24! 

97 

12,  13, 

180 

22, 

207 

454 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTUEE   CITATIONS. 


ISA. 

FAOE 

JER. 

PAGE 

EZEK. 

PAOK 

xlv.  5, 

60 

xxiii.  31, 

177 

xxxiii.  13, 

171 

7, 

76 

XX  v.  1, 

400 

19, 

88 

15, 

70 

xxix.  11, 

76,  77 

XXXV.  12, 

206 

17, 

432 

XXX.  16, 

207 

xxxvi.  5, 

78 

19, 

71 

xxxi.  22, 

432 

25,  26, 

166 

23, 

211 

xxxii.  27, 

55 

xliii.  22, 

114 

xlviii.  16, 

60,  62 

31, 

228 

xliv.  29, 

114 

xlix.  6, 

119 

xxxiii.  16, 

138 

xlv.  22, 

114 

15, 

57 

xxxiv.  3, 

363 

xlvii.  13, 

305 

liii.  2,  3, 

127 

xxxvi.  9, 

393 

xlviii.  4,  5, 

305 

9, 

114 

30, 

346 

374 

Iv.  6, 

71 

xxxvii.  5, 

344 

DANIEL. 

7, 

196 

xl.  10, 

252 

i.  1,            393,  400 

402 

Ivi.  2, 

233 

xlvi.  2, 

400 

2, 

412 

Ivii.  1, 

88,  204 

li.  8, 

205 

5,  18, 

402 

2, 

88 

Hi.  12, 

393 

402 

21, 

414 

15, 

102 

23,  25, 

383 

ii.  1, 

402 

21, 

214 

28, 

400 

48, 

331 

Iviii.  6, 

302 

28-30, 

385 

iii.  12, 

331 

Ixi.  1,2, 

150,151 

29, 

402 

16,  18, 

292 

Ixiii.  17, 

90 

31, 

400 

vi.  10,  11, 

231 

Ixv.  1, 

71 

13, 

392 

17, 

432 

LAMENTATIONS. 

vii.  9,                     73,  74 

20, 

180 

iii.  22, 

92 

13, 

131 

Ixvi.  1, 

58, 102 

38, 

76 

14,                   131 

137 

44, 

70 

23, 

207 

JEREMIAH. 

V.  21, 

166 

ix.  26, 

205 

i.  5, 

270 

x.  1, 

414 

ii.  10,  11, 

343 

EZEKIEL. 

xii.  2,         199,200 

209 

22, 

227 

V.  7, 

343 

iv.  8, 

82 

xi.  12, 

343 

HOSEA. 

14, 

166,  227 

xii.  13, 

363 

i.  2, 

255 

vi.  20, 

235 

xiii.  10-16, 

177 

iv.  2, 

242 

vii.  9, 

*95 

13,  14,. 

206 

6, 

205 

22,  23, 

235 

xiv.  9, 

99 

11, 

251 

ix.  4, 

262 

xvi.  47, 

343 

vi.  6, 

235 

xii.  1, 

180 

xviii.  2, 

8£ 

,  88 

viii.  7, 

209 

xiii.  14, 

93,  95 

4, 

84 

xiii.  9, 

205 

15-17, 

95 

5, 

178 

228 

XV.  6, 

64 

9,              88, 

178, 

228 

JOEL. 

xvii.  5, 

262,  287 

19, 

88 

iii.  8, 

302 

10, 

56 

20, 

84 

203 

12, 

103 

xviii.  7-10, 

64,  148 

24, 

169 

170 

11. 

76 

25, 

83 

AMOS. 

XX.  7, 

99 

31, 

166 

i.  13, 

264 

xxii.  11, 

.349 

32, 

96, 

225 

iii.  6, 

77 

19, 

374 

XX.  3, 

70 

vi.  1, 

394 

30, 

346 

24-26, 

104 

viii.  14, 

200 

xxiii.  6, 

138 

25, 

77 

ix.  2,  3, 

58 

19, 

209 

xxi.  3,4, 

88 

23, 

58 

xxii.  28, 

177 

JONAH. 

24, 

58,  103 

xxiv.  14, 

63 

i.  3, 

58 

INDEX   OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


455 


JONAH. 

PAOK 

iii.  4, 

5, 

148 

10, 

MICAH. 

64,  148 

iii.  4, 

89 

vi.  16 

77 

vii.  2, 

204 

5, 

NAHUM 

262 

i.  2, 

'  78,  82 

HABAKKUK. 

ii.  4, 
iii.  3, 

4, 

7, 

ZFCHARIAH. 
i.  3, 
ix.  9, 
xi.  12,  13, 
xii.  11, 


MALACHI. 


PAOlt 

228 

i.  2,  3, 

60 

14, 

63 

ii.  14,  15, 

339 

1.5, 

16, 

iii.  1, 

166 

6, 

131 

15, 

153 

iv.  1, 

376 

1-3, 

PAOB 

97 

99 

295 

263 

263 

151 

63 

82 

214 

205 


MATTH 

i.  2-16, 

11, 

12, 

16, 

17, 

20, 
ii.  1-23, 

11, 
iii.  5, 

12, 

14, 

17, 
It.  7, 

8, 

10, 

12, 

14-16, 

17,18-22, 
T.  1,  2, 

1-48, 

3, 

4, 

5, 

14, 

16, 

17, 

22,  . 

25,  26, 

32, 

3.3-37, 

39, 

44, 

48, 
vi.  1, 

1-34, 

5,  6, 


EW. 

PAOE 

388 
389 

346,  389 
325 
388 
406 
413 
414 
428 
211 
409 
153 
83 
407 
293 
407 
151 
407 
368 
331 
174 
251 
177 
129 
279 
120 
277 
211 
263 
243 
298 

271,  276 
169 
279 
331 
231 


MATT. 

PAOB 

MATT. 

vi.  7,  8, 

232 

xii.  41,  42, 

13, 

79, 

2.53 

49,  50, 

19, 

174, 

280 

XV.  5,  6, 

21, 

174 

22, 

25, 

19, 

280 

24, 

34, 

280 

xvi.  4, 

vii.  1,  2, 

284 

13, 

1-29, 

331 

27, 

8, 

71 

28, 

21, 

231 

xvii.  12,  13 

viii.  5, 

346 

xviii.  3,  4, 

12, 

210 

213 

15, 

21,  22, 

287 

20, 

26, 

1.53 

xix.  1, 

28, 

369 

387 

5, 

ix.  2, 

153 

7, 

30, 

327 

8, 

X.  1-42, 

407 

18, 

2-4, 

322 

21, 

5,6, 

119 

26, 

9,  10, 

154 

23, 

15, 

210 

XX.  9-12, 

23, 

135 

16, 

28, 

186 

17, 

34-36, 

118 

20, 

37, 

97 

23, 

xi.  3-5, 

120 

121 

29, 

14, 

348 

30, 

22, 

210 

xxi.  1, 

28, 

116 

,179 

1-11, 

30, 

179 

2,  3, 

xii.  1-5, 

234 

5,7, 

32, 

139,211 

,241 

19, 

40, 

413 

31, 

41,  42, 

202 

38, 

xiii.  12, 

83 

41, 

34, 

331 

xxii.  12, 

PAOB 

210,214 
203 
191 
239 
119 
155 
108 
182 
155 
347 

161, 162 
293 
114 

119,  327 
291 
263 

263,  295 
285 
253 
55 
202 
210 
172 
327 
347 
110 
327 
386 
327 
132 
155 
384 
155 
217 
358 
363 
209 


•156 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


MATT. 

PAOB 

MARK. 

MARK. 

PAOK 

xxii.  13, 

210 

PAOE 

XV.  23, 

325 

18,  19, 

156 

i.  2, 

151 

25, 

412 

30, 

155 

11, 

153 

26, 

154 

31, 

156 

14, 

407 

xvi.  1, 

391,  412 

32, 

156 

15, 

165 

1-14, 

327 

xxiii.  2,  3,  8, 

293 

16-20, 

407 

2, 

426 

9, 

257, 

287 

21,29, 

377 

5, 

386 

10, 

257 

ii.  5, 

153 

16-22, 

243 

26, 

320 

LUKE 

17, 

277 

iii.  5, 

275 

i.  5, 

336 

33, 

116 

16-19, 

322 

26-37, 

406 

xxiv.  3, 

146 

29, 

211,  241 

27, 

336 

14, 

135 

iv.  12, 

38 

33, 

137 

15,16, 

156 

40. 

153 

36, 

336 

21, 

132 

V.  1, 

369 

61, 

338 

24, 

121 

19,  43, 

327 

ii.  4-39, 

413 

29,  30, 

132 

vi.  5, 

110 

9, 

386 

36, 

113 

8,9, 

154 

36-38, 

309 

51, 

203 

32,  45,  53, 

367 

39, 

414 

XXV.  14-30, 

433 

vii.  26, 

119,  339 

52, 

111,113 

30, 

203 

210 

27, 

119 

iii.  2, 

320 

31,  32, 

201 

viii.  12, 

155 

22, 

153 

34, 

417 

38, 

209 

23, 

325,  326 

41, 

210 

ix.  1, 

155 

27, 

346 

46, 

211 

2, 

416 

35,  36, 

352 

xxvi.  2,  6. 

416 

13, 

347 

iv.  5, 

407 

7, 

411 

44,  46,  48, 

209 

18,  19, 

150,  151 

11, 

114 

X.  7-9, 

295 

25, 

415 

17-30, 

423 

13,  14,  16, 

270 

V.  1-11, 

407 

18, 

151 

18, 

159 

20, 

153 

21-29, 

156 

24, 

174,  175 

vi.  12, 

114,231 

34, 

424 

25, 

175 

13-16, 

322 

52, 

259 

,298 

30, 

174 

17, 

368 

63, 

242 

35, 

347 

20, 

174,368 

64, 

156 

46, 

386 

24, 

174 

xxvii.  5, 

349 

xi.  2,3, 

155 

25, 

250 

6,  7, 

347 

7, 

384 

26, 

176 

9,  10, 

153 

13, 

111 

27-29, 

299 

34, 

325 

14, 

155 

30, 

280 

37, 

154 

xii.  9, 

363 

35, 

280, 306 

44, 

384 

15, 

156 

35,  36, 

264 

48, 

325 

25, 

155 

37, 

.  284 

xxviii.  1, 

391 

26,  27, 

156 

45, 

159 

1-10, 

327 

38,  40, 

206,  293 

46, 

231 

2,  5, 

386 

xiii.  10, 

135 

vii.  3, 

346 

9, 

330 

14, 

156 

15, 

201 

10, 

369 

32, 

111,  113 

22, 

327 

16, 

367 

,369 

xiv.  12-26, 

423 

30, 

428 

17, 

367 

13,  14, 

151 

37,  38, 

411 

18. 

110 

18-24, 

156 

viii.  25, 

1.53 

19, 

257 

,  370 

30, 

424 

27, 

387 

20, 

114 

62, 

156 

52,  53, 

337 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


457 


LUKE. 

PAOR 

LUKE 

PAGE 

JOHN, 

FAOB 

ix.  3, 

154 

xxii. 

8,  10,  11 

151 

V.  13, 

114 

10-17, 

367 

13- 

20, 

423 

16, 

235 

27, 

155 

14- 

20, 

156 

22, 

120,201 

28, 

416 

30, 

202 

27, 

120 

30,  31, 

195 

31, 

179 

28, 

199,  200 

52, 

119, 

358 

34, 

424 

29, 

200 

53, 

358 

36, 

259 

298 

31, 

117 

56, 

116 

43, 

117 

34, 

118 

59,  60, 

287 

69, 

70, 

108 

35, 

129 

X.  1-20, 

407 

xxiii. 

26, 

324 

36, 

121 

23, 

219 

34, 

271 

37, 

73,76 

33-37, 

119 

38, 

154 

vi.  15, 

136 

xi.  8, 

232 

39-41, 

384 

32, 

134 

10, 

89 

43, 

198 

51, 

128 

19, 

121, 

126 

56, 

412 

53, 

38 

xii.  4, 

185 

277 

xxiv. 

1-12, 

327 

66, 

39 

5, 

187 

1-53, 

386 

vii.  1, 

277 

16-20, 

196 

4, 

386 

24, 

284 

21, 

174 

10, 

391 

34, 

71 

33, 

280 

15, 

114 

39, 

417 

47,  48, 

210 

25, 

277 

viii.  14, 

117 

xiii.  5, 

1G5 

27, 

331 

15, 

120,  201 

24,      19,  71 

261 

33, 

36, 

367 

40, 

106 

32, 

169 

39, 

63 

51, 

183 

xiv.  26, 

97, 

286 

49, 

139 

369 

58, 

111 

xvi.  18, 

263 

50, 

51, 

367 

ix.  5, 

129 

20, 

177 

39, 

120,  201 

22, 

177 

188 

JOHN 

X.  9,  11, 

128 

23, 

188 

199 

i.  1, 

106 

15,  17,  18, 

130 

26, 

199 

9, 

129 

28, 

169, 172 

27,  28,  30, 

193 

14, 

106 

30, 

106 

xvii.  11,16, 

119 

18, 

73 

109 

36, 

108 

20,  21, 

136 

21, 

347 

40, 

327 

xviii.  1,  7, 

232 

33, 

409 

xi.  3,  4, 

184 

16,  17, 

162 

35-43, 

407 

11-14, 

191 

35,  38, 

386 

36, 

127 

14, 

184 

xix.  10, 

108 

,  116 

44, 

377 

15, 

114,  184 

11-27, 

433 

ii.  1- 

11, 

252 

17, 

327 

30,  31, 

155 

15, 

298 

26, 

178,  183 

xx.  16, 

363 

24, 

25, 

111 

34, 

111 

23,  24, 

156 

iii.  2, 

121 

,  407 

44, 

3.53 

35.  36, 

155 

6, 

162 

45, 

184 

37, 

156 

200 

13, 

216 

54, 

327 

38,    156, 

195 

197 

17, 

120 

xii.  1. 

327,416 

xxi.  17, 

172 

22, 

24, 

407 

3, 

411 

20,  21, 

156 

34, 

139 

27, 

117 

23, 

133 

35, 

110 

40, 

90,  92 

24, 

132 

,  133 

36, 

211 

47, 

120,  20! 

27, 

132 

iv.  3, 

4, 

119 

xiii.  1,  2, 

423 

33, 

215 

24, 

63 

33, 

198 

xxii.  1, 

423 

39, 

40, 

358 

38, 

424 

3, 

140 

40 

41, 

119 

xiv.  2,  3, 

417 

89 


458 


INDEX   OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


JOHN. 

FAOB 

ACTS. 

PAOE 

ACTS. 

FAOB 

xiv.  16, 

141 

ii.  1^, 

417 

xvi.  6, 

370 

23, 

103 

4, 

140 

7, 

139 

26, 

139 

17, 

139 

xvii.  26, 

298 

27, 

118 

18, 

139 

,309 

30,  5,  165, 

215,  232 

28, 

107 

23, 

130 

31, 

106,  201 

XV.  5, 

128 

34, 

198 

xviii.  26, 

309 

13, 

130 

iii.  15, 

130 

xix.  34, 

232 

15, 

31 

330 

17, 

358 

XX.  9,  10, 

337 

26, 

141 

21, 

214 

28, 

107, 139 

27, 

118 

iv.  8, 

139 

xxi.  9, 

309 

xvi.  3, 

358 

19, 

292 

xxii.  9, 

359 

12, 

31 

330 

34,  35, 

253 

XX  vi.  14, 

359 

13,  14, 

139 

V.  3, 

99,  140 

,141 

23, 

201 

22, 

250 

4, 

141 

xxviii.  25, 

139 

28, 

106 

29, 

292 

30, 

111 

31, 

165 

ROMANS. 

33, 

179 

vii.  4, 

392 

i.  13, 

18 

xvii.  3, 

60 

107 

5,   * 

318 

20, 

72 

9, 

131 

14, 

389 

24,  25, 

77 

12, 

170 

15,  16, 

357 

ii.5. 

85 

17, 

168 

29, 

424 

6, 

85,210 

22, 

106 

30,  32, 

74 

7, 

187 

xviii.  28, 

423 

48, 

102 

9,  10, 

339 

31, 

220 

52, 

130 

11, 

81 

36, 

136 

59, 

198 

13, 

167 

xix.  7, 

220 

60, 

191 

271 

14,  15, 

164 

14, 

423 

viii.  27, 

308 

16, 

201 

14-18, 

412 

29, 

139 

29, 

213 

17, 

324 

32, 

128 

iii.  18, 

159 

19, 

154 

37, 

108 

20, 

167 

29,  30, 

325 

39, 

139 

23, 

1.59 

XX.  1, 

391 

,426 

ix.  1, 

248 

28, 

167 

1-18, 

327 

6, 

407 

iv.  2, 

167 

1-31, 

386 

7, 

359 

5, 

306 

12, 

386 

10-16, 

407 

v.  8,  10, 

130 

17, 

330 

X.  3, 

407 

12, 

165,  183 

19, 

367 

9, 

231 

18,19, 

165 

22, 

417 

13, 

279 

,407 

20, 

241 

29, 

219 

15, 

407 

vi.  9, 

201 

xxi.  1-25, 

386 

34, 

81 

11, 

208 

16, 

279 

38,  44, 

139 

vii.  10, 

77,  105 

17, 

111 

xi.  18, 

165 

18, 

230 

xii.  7, 

386 

viii.  14,  15,  16 

,    109 

ACTS. 

xiii.  2, 

139 

26, 

131,141 

i.  3, 

331 

20, 

421 

,426 

27, 

139,141 

5, 

139 

417 

21, 

149 

28, 

172 

8, 

417 

22, 

222 

29, 

170 

9,  12, 

367 

39, 

241 

30, 

170,  172 

13, 

322 

48, 

214 

38,  39, 

170 

18, 

347 

349 

XV.  10, 

83 

104 

ix.  1, 

243 

24, 

56 

28, 

139 

11, 

162 

25. 

171 

199 

xvi.  1,  3, 

260 

11-13, 

83 

INDEX   OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


459 


ROM. 

PAGE 

ICOR. 

PAOB 

GALATIANS. 

ix.  16, 

249 

viii.  11, 

172 

PAGE 

18, 

90,  92 

ix.  22, 

294 

i.  8, 

170 

X.  5, 

104 

24, 

249 

10, 

294 

xi.  26, 

213 

X.  8, 

382 

13, 

248 

32, 

214 

19, 

249,  433 

ii.  3,  4, 

260 

33, 

72 

20,  21, 

249 

6, 

81 

xii.  14, 

276 

306 

25, 

246 

8, 

247 

20, 

25 

,275 

33, 

294 

16, 

167 

xiii.  1,  2, 

S92 

xi.  1-34, 

310 

20, 

230 

3,4, 

92 

3, 

308 

iii.  1, 

277 

5, 

292 

4, 

310 

11,  12, 

1G7 

14, 

280 

5, 

309 

13, 

115, 120 

xiv.  5, 

233 

14, 

246 

17, 

416,419 

6, 

244 

23-26, 

156 

21, 

105 

10, 

201 

xii.  3, 

231 

29, 

149 

14, 

246 

8,  11, 

139 

iv.  8-11, 

245 

15, 

172 

31, 

249 

10, 

244 

XV,  2, 

294 

xiii.  1-3, 

171 

24, 

104 

20,  30, 

261 

1-13, 

273 

28, 

149 

33, 

92 

7,8, 

262 

V.  2, 

260 

xvi.  5, 

310 

xiv.  1-40, 

310 

15, 

206 

12, 

309 

33, 

77,  92 

20, 

308 

27, 

186 

34, 

308,  309 

22,  23, 

142 

35, 

309 

vi.  2,  5, 

257 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

39, 

249 

i.  14,  17, 

257 

XV.  5-8, 

386 

EPHESIANS. 

29, 

247 

6, 

368 

ii.  1, 

208,  393 

ii.  8, 

358 

9,  10, 

247 

3, 

164 

10,  11, 

139 

15, 

217 

5,  6, 10, 

166 

15, 

202 

20, 

201 

19, 

178 

iii.  6,  8, 

106 

21, 

200 

20, 

128,  129 

11, 

129 

22, 

214 

iii.  8, 

247 

17, 

205 

24,  25,  28, 

137 

iv.  18, 

393 

iv.  15, 

257 

31, 

208 

25, 

290 

V.  12, 

284 

36, 

277 

26, 

245 

vi.  2,  3, 

202 

51, 

134,  183 

30, 

139 

9. 

217 

52, 

134,  200 

V.  14, 

166 

10, 

217, 

251 

xvi.  19, 

310 

22,  24, 

308 

vii.  1, 

291 

22, 

272,  275 

25,  33, 

286 

2, 

291 

,295 

vi.  4, 

287 

6, 

143 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

6, 

294 

8, 

291 

iii.  7,  13. 

355 

9, 

81 

12, 

143 

V.  6, 

197 

17, 

129 

18, 

260 

8, 

198 

24, 

187 

23, 

293 

10, 

201,  210 

25, 

144 

21, 

114 

PHILIPPIANS. 

26,  27, 

291 

vi.  16, 

103 

i.  21, 

197 

3i,  33,  38, 

291 

xi.  5, 

247 

23, 

19S 

40, 

144 

17, 

143,  247 

ii.  5,  6, 

107 

viii.  4,  5, 

433 

18, 

247 

7, 

112 

6, 

60 

20, 

206 

8, 

112,  117 

8,  9-13, 

249 

xii.  11, 

247 

10,  11, 

211 

460 


INDEX    OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 


PHIL. 

PAOB 

iTiai. 

PAOB 

UEB. 

PAOB 

ii.  12,  13, 

167,251 

V.  19,  20, 

293 

X.  39, 

170 

15, 

129 

23, 

251 

xi.  5, 

206,  217 

iii.  11,  12, 

15,           169 

vi.  9,  10, 

253 

8, 

304 

19. 

208 

15,  16, 

185 

12, 

318 

iy.  3, 

309 

16, 

70,73 

,  101 

13, 

178,  363 

4, 

251 

17, 

174 

253 

16, 

149,  407 

5, 

134 

18, 

253 

17, 

380 

20, 

307 

21, 

345 

COLOSSIANS. 

27, 

424 

ii.  3, 

111 

2  TIMOTHY 

32, 

239 

5, 

114 

i.  10, 

185 

33, 

363 

8,  9, 

107 

ii.  14, 

261 

37, 

173 

14, 

207 

24, 

19, 

261 

39, 

149, 363 

16, 

233 

25, 

165,265, 

279 

40, 

149 

iii.  3, 

208 

iii.  12, 

178 

xii.  6, 

172,179 

9, 

166,  290 

16, 

143 

8, 

179 

10, 

166 

iv.  14, 

275 

11, 

172 

20,21, 

287 

17, 

232 

22, 

293 

TITUS. 

23, 

202 

ii.  11, 

214 

29, 

93,95 

ITHESSALONIANS. 

xiii.  4, 

255,  291 

ii.  4, 

294 

HEBREWS. 

14, 

177 

iv.  6, 

300 

i.  1, 

4 

20, 

128 

14, 

199 

8, 

106, 

137 

15, 

19,  134 

ii.  4, 

121 

JAMES. 

15-17, 

183 

17, 

111 

i.  2, 

253 

17, 

134 

iii.  8, 

90 

5,6, 

89 

v.  19, 

139 

iv.  3, 

417 

13, 

79,  82 

9, 

218 

17, 

63 

2THESSAL0NIANS. 

13. 

56 

19,  20, 

245 

i.  8, 

202 

15, 

114 

25, 

104 

9, 

203,  205 

V.  7, 

117 

ii.  5, 

175 

ii.  1,  2,  3, 

134 

8, 

114 

12, 

104 

7, 

18 

vi.  4-6, 

170 

14,  17,  21, 

167 

9, 

121,  126 

13, 

243 

22,  24, 

167 

9-12, 

99 

17, 

244 

25, 

290 

11, 

40,77 

18, 

55,98 

244 

26, 

167 

13, 

169 

vii.  14, 

150 

iii.  1.5, 

254 

19, 

104 

16, 

261 

1  TIMOTHY. 

26, 

114 

17, 

254 

i.  17, 

73 

viii.  1, 

128 

iv.  3, 

89 

ii.  3,  4, 

214 

ix.  4, 

390 

8, 

70 

•*> 

106,  131 

26, 

128 

V.  1-3, 

174 

•'. 

119 

27, 

183. 

185 

11, 

92 

8, 

231 

28, 

128 

12, 

243 

11,  12. 

309 

X.  4, 

236 

17, 

415 

iii.  1!>,  16, 

129 

5,6, 

1.52 

19,  20, 

262 

iv.  7, 

307 

11, 

236 

10, 

214 

26-29, 

170 

1  PETER. 

16, 

262 

27, 

206 

i.  2, 

1G8 

▼.6, 

208 

31, 

96 

17, 

81 

8, 

280 

38, 

88 

18,  19, 

107 

INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 


461 


IPET, 

PAOB 

1  JOHN. 

REV. 

FAOK 

ii.  7, 

127 

PAOE 

iv.  8, 

218 

8, 

40 

128 

i.  8,            159 

V.  5, 

127 

", 

178 

ii.  1,    131,  159,  241 

12, 

115 

13,  14, 

292 

iii.  2,           109 

vi.  9, 

191 

18, 

293 

6,  9,          159 

10, 

191,275 

23, 

276 

14,  15,        286 

16, 

116 

25, 

128 

iv.  9,           109 

vii.  14, 

128,  173 

iii.  5,  6, 

308 

16,            92 

X.  5, 

243 

9, 

27G 

V.  7,          60,  62 

6, 

243 

13, 

172 

14,            89 

xi.  18, 

205 

17,18, 

195 

16,           241 

xii.  12, 

362 

18-20, 

191 

18,           179 

xiii.  13, 

14, 

121 

iv.  6, 

193, 

195 

20,           108 

18, 

24 

7, 

134 

xiv.  10, 

11, 

203,  212 

V.  8, 

362 

JUDE. 

13, 

218 

2  PETER. 

3,            261 

xix.  11, 

13,  15 

116 

i.  19,   - 

148 

6^            362 

XX.  9, 

206 

20,  21, 

146 

10, 

212 

ii.  4, 

362 

11. 

216 

21,  22, 

170 

REVELATION. 

12, 

182,202 

iii.  7, 

203 

216 

ii.  11,       183,  184 

13,  15 

, 

210 

9, 

214 

iii.  1,           208 

xxi.  3, 

103 

10, 

216 

iv.  6-8,         227 

8, 

214, 

290,  308 

89* 


GENERAL     INDEX. 


Aaron,  death  where,  363. 

Abel-beth-maachah,  names,  373. 

Al)if;ail,  father  of,  31 6. 

A!)ijah,  mother,  31 7 ;  hypocrisy,  317. 

Abraham,  equivocation,  26 ;  temp- 
tation, 79 ;  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  238 ; 
difficulty  with  Pharaoh,  317  ; 
with  Abimelech,  317  ;  inheritance 
gained,  318;  prolon<jed  virility, 
318;  weakness  and  timidity,  318; 
marriat^e  with  Kcturah,  318,  339  ; 
destination,  .364  ;  sons,  380 ;  age 
at  migration,  392. 

Absalom,  sons,  380 ;  tarry  at  home, 
393. 

Achan,  children  slain,  87,  237. 

Adam,  death  when,  393. 

Adultery  tolerated  and  forbidden 
2.55. 

Agag  mentioned  prematurely,  394. 

Ahab,  deceived  by  Micaiah,  98;  death 
where,  364  ;  death  when,  396. 

Ahaz,  favoring  religion,  319  ;  invin- 
cible, 319;  burial  where,  364. 

Ahaziah  of  Israel,  reign  begun 
when,  398. 

Ahaziah  of  Judali,  brethren's  fate, 
319;  grandfather,  .320;  death 
w!iere,364;  age,  398;  reign  begun, 
398. 

Ahimclech,  high-priesthood,  320. 

Ai,  destruction,  403. 

Aliiir,  material,  427. 

Ainalek  mentioned  ])rematiirelv, 
394. 

Amalckites,  destruction,  94,  403; 
location,  .■i(')5. 

Aniasa,  iatberof,  320. 

Aniaziali,  reign  begun,  398. 

Ambu.scadc,  number  of  men,  381. 
4G2 


Ammonites,   torture,    264 ;    allies, 

320 ;  land  taken,  365. 
Anah,  nationality,  321. 
Anak,  sons'  fate,  321. 
Analogy  of  Bible  and  nature,  33. 
Anatomists,  disagreement,  11. 
Angels  seen,  number,  386. 
Anger   approved    and  condemned, 

245. 
Animal-food,  use  restricted  and  un- 
restricted, 246  ;  kinds  prohibited 

and  allowed,  246. 
Animals,     number    employed     by 

Christ,  384 ;  number  sacrificed, 

384. 
Announcement  made  to  Mary  and 

to  Joseph,  406. 
Apostles,  lists  of  names,  322 ;  called 

when,    407  ;    distinct    from    the 

"seventy  di.sciples,"  407. 
Arab,  sons,  number,  380. 
Ark,  location,  366  ;  contents,  390 ; 

construction  when,  407. 
Arrangement,  different  methods  and 

principles,  9. 
Asa,  mother,  323  ;  removal  of  high 

])laces,  323;  ten  years'  tranquility, 

398. 
Assassination    sanctioned   and   for- 
bidden, 2.55. 
Autborship,  differences,  6. 
Avenj^ing  ot  blood  provided  for  and 

discounteiiaiiced,  256. 
Azariah,  reign  begun,  399  ;  ended, 

399. 


Baal,  jjrojihets  slain,  265. 
liaaslia,  death  when,  399. 
Bacon,    Francis,    Christian 
doxes,  8. 


Para- 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


4G3 


Balaam,  return  whither,  366  ;  per- 
mission and  prohibition  of  jour- 
ney, 69. 

Baptism  enjoined  and  neglected,  257. 

Barley  and  lentiles,  field,  428. 

Beasts,  slain  where,  367 ;  number 
entering  Noah's  ark,  387. 

Bcdan,  judge  of  Israel,  323. 

Beershcba  named  twice,  410. 

Benevolence  of  God,  he  withholds 
and  bestows  blessings,  89;  hardens 
men's  hearts,  and  they  do  it,  89; 
is  warlike  and  peaceful,  92. 

Benjamin,  birth-place^,  367  ;  number 
of  sons,  384. 

Benjamites,  number  slain,  387. 

Bethel,  conquered  when,  403  ; 
named  twice,  410. 

Bethsaida,  twofold  location,  367. 

Bethshemites,  50070  slain,  92. 

Bible,  analogy  to  nature,  33 ;  com- 
pared with  other  books,  47  ;  moral 
influence  undiminished,  50. 

Bleek,  definition  of  miracle,  122. 

Blessing  gained  by  those  who  see 
and  those  who  see  not,  219. 

Blind  men,  number  healed,  386. 

Blood,  poured  and  sprinkled,  219 ; 
covered  with  dust  and  poured  out, 
220. 

Boasting  tolerated  and  repudiated, 
247 ;  Paul's  case,  247 ;  Moses' 
case,  248. 

Brown,  Ur.  Thos.,  definition  of  mir- 
acle, 124. 

Burdens,  our  own  and  others,  to  be 
borne  by  us,  257. 

Caleb,  father  of,  323. 

Calling  men    "  failier,"    forbidden 

and  exemplified,  257. 
Canaan  cursed,  f^4,  ."302. 
Canaan,  land,   in    state  of  famine, 

367  ;    cunquored    speedily,  403  ; 

extent  of  subjuLration,  404. 
Canaaiiites,    extirj)ate(l,    205,   324; 

s])ared    for    test   of   Israel,    324  ; 

destroyed  suddenly,  403. 
Capital    punishment   inflicted   and ' 

omitted,  258.  i 

Cajitives,  spared  and  put  to  death, 

258  ;  number  taken  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, 384. 


1  Cattle  of  Egypt,  extent  of  destruc- 
tion, 428. 
Census   of  Israelites,    made  when, 

411. 
Chapiter,  length,  382. 
Chastity  tested  in  diverse  ways,  258. 
Children,  of  Bethel,  slain  by  bears, 

270  ;  treatment,  287. 
Christ,  divinity,  106  ;  omnipotence, 
j      110;    omniscience.    111;    omni- 
presence,   114;     holiness,    114; 
j      mercy,  116;   courage   and   forti- 
I      tude,  117;  veracity,  117;  mission, 
I      118;  miracles,  120  ;  modes  of  rep- 
I      resenting  him,  127;  sacrifice,  130; 
I      intercession,  131  ;   coming,  131  ; 
I      kingdom,  136  ;  name,  138 ;  exe- 
j      cution,  220 ;  bearing  of  the  cross, 
'      324  ;  last  drink,  325  ;  genealogy, 
325  ;  last  tour,  327  ;  concealment 
I      of    miracles,   327 ;    resurrection, 
j      327  ;  revelation  of  truth,  330 ;  use 
j      of  parables,   331  ;    approach   by 
I      centurion,  .367  ;   ascension,  367  ; 
first  re-appearance,  367  ;  first  ser- 
j      mon,   368 ;    number  of   appear- 
I      ances,    386  ;     conveyance    upon 
mountain,    407  ;     beginning     of 
preaching,  407  ;  anointing,  41 1 ; 
I      crucifixion,    412 ;     entombment, 
413;  infancy,  orderof  events,  413. 
I  Christ,  execution.  See  Execution  of 
'      Christ. 
Christians,  bearing  of  weapons  by, 

permitted  and  forbidden,  259. 
Chronology,  Oriental  niethcftls,  13. 
I  Circumcision,   instituted    and   dis- 
carded, 260  ;   not  to  be  omitted, 
I      yet    neglected    forty   years,  200 ; 
!      profitable,  yet  useless,  260. 
1  Cities,   location,  368  ;  pertained  to 
what    tribe,    368 ;     Canaanitish, 
smitten  when,  404. 
Cities  of  refuge,  number,  385. 
Cities  and  villages,  number,  387. 
City,  Lcvitical,  dimensions,  388. 
Collusion    of    sacred    writers    dis- 
proved, 30. 
Coming  of  Christ,  in  humility  and 
in  grandeur,  131  ;  before  and  after 
"times  of  Gentiles,"   132;    near 
and  far  off,  134  ;  before  and  after 
world  evangelized,  135. 


464 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


Commutation  for  murder,  not  al- 
lowed, yet  permitted,  261. 

Com])utation,  diflerent  methods,  11; 
Oriental  methods  in  general,  13  ; 
Hebrew  methods,  396. 

Concubine,wifeof  inferior  rank,  295. 

Conduct  of  David,  strayed  and  did 
not  stray,  221  ;  heart  perfect,  yet 
he  sinned,  222. 

Contention  and  strife  enjoined  and 
forbidden,  261. 

Conversion  of  men,  effected  by  one- 
self and  by  another,  262. 

Convocations  and  feasts,  number, 
387. 

Country  of  two  demoniacs,  369. 

Courage  and  fortitude  of  Christ, 
shrank,  yet  shrank  not,  at  death, 
117. 

Covenant,  basis,  religious  laws  and 
civil  laws,  220. 

Covering  of  sin  approved  and  de- 
nounced, 221. 

Coveting  enjoined  and  prohibited, 
249. 

Creation,  order  of  events,  408. 

Creation  of  man,  made  like  God ; 
this  likeness  acquired,  158;  made 
in  divine  image;  with  sexual  dis- 
tinctions, 159;  made  like  God; 
none  like  him,  159. 

Crimes  specified,  different  lists,  221. 

Critic's  imagination,  source  of  dis- 
crepancies, 25,  28. 

Crooked  made  straight,  428. 

Dan  named  twice,  410. 

Daniel,  exaltation,  331 ;  tarry  at 
Babylon,  414. 

Dates,  difference,  source  of  discrep- 
ancies, 3. 

David,  perils  in  wilderness  of  Ziph, 
26  ;  sparing  Saul  in  cave,  26 ; 
temptation  to  number  the  people, 
79 ;  general  conduct,  221  ;  per- 
fectness  of  heart,  222 ;  detention  at 
Saul's  court,  331;  building  of  tem- 
ple forbidden,  33 1 ;  olTieers'  names, 
332 ;  relation  to  Achish,  332 ;  sons' 
names,  332 ;  sons'  priesthood,  .333 ; 
tempter,  333 ;  warriors'  names, 
3."{4  ;  capture  of  Philistine  city, 
369;  three  anointings,  411. 


Death  of  man,  all  must  die,  but 
some  die  not,  183  ;  Lazarus  not 
to  die,  yet  did  die,  184;  man's 
death  like  a  beast's,  and  different, 

184  ;  death  ceases,  and  still  exists, 

185  ;  men  immortal,  yet  God  only 
so,  185  ;  men  kill  souls,  and  can- 
not kill  them,  186  ;  immortality 
possessed,  and  to  be  acquired, 187. 

Deaths  by  plagne,  number,  382. 
Debir     conquered     several     times, 

405. 
Degrees  of  future  punishment,  alike 

and  different,  210. 
Deluge,  duration,  415. 
Demoniacs,  number  healed,  387. 
Descent  of  Christ   into   hades,  pa- 
tristic view  of,  192. 
Design  of  the  Discrepancies,  30. 
To  stimulate  the  intellect,  30. 
Illustrate  analogy  of  Bible  and 

nature,  33. 
Disprove  collusion   of   sacred 

writers,  36. 
Lead  us  to  value  spirit  above 

letter,  37. 
Serve  as  a  test  of  moral  char- 
acter, 38. 
Destruction  of  the  earth,  indestruc- 
tible, yet  to  be  destroyed,  215. 
Disciples,  outfit,  154;  tarry,  where, 

369. 
Discrepancies,  number,  1. 
Origin,  3. 
Design,  30. 
Results,  41. 
Ethical,  219. 
Historical,  312. 
Miscellaneous,  427. 
Distrust    enjoined   and   precluded, 

262. 
Divinity  of  Christ,  is  God  and  man, 
100  ;  one  witii  yet  distinct  Croni, 
tlie  Fatlier,  106  ;  equal  witii,  yet 
inferior  to  Iliin,  107  ;  Sun  is  God, 
and  Father  only  God,  107  ;  is  Son 
of  God,  and  Son  of  man,  108; 
only  Son  of  God,  yet  men  are 
sons,  109. 
Divinity  of  Holy  Spirit,  is  God,  yet 

subordinate,  141. 
Divorce    allowed     and    restricted, 
263. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


46F, 


Doctrinal  Discrepancies,  55. 
Pertainint;  to  God,  55. 
To  Christ,  106. 
To  Holy  Spirit,  139. 
To  Scriptures,  143. 
To  Man  in  relation  to  the  Pres- 
ent, 158. 
To  Man  in  relation  to  the  Fu- 
ture, 183. 
Dor  conquered  twice,  405. 
Drought  and  famine,  duration,  41 5. 
Duration  of  future  punishment,  un- 

endincr,  yet  will  terminate,  211. 
Duty,  revelation  of,  gradual,  4. 

Earth,  destruction,  215;  dried  twice, 
415;  founded,  429;  saturated, 
429. 

Ebrard,  illustration  of  messenger, 
328. 

Edomites  hated  and  not  hated,  271 ; 
hindered  Israel's  passage,  333  ;  in- 
hospitable, 335 ;  slain,  how  many, 
382. 

Edwardses,  the  two,  case,  26. 

Effort,  human,  encouraged  and  de- 
preciated, 249. 

Egyptians  visible  and  not  seen, 
363. 

Ehud,  slaughter  of  Eglon,  255. 

Ela,  reign,  duration,  399. 

Elhanan,  victim,  336. 

Eli,  family  discipline,  335. 

Eliakim,  predecessor,  335. 

Elijah,  mockery  of  Baal's  prophets, 
276  ;  journey  to  Horeb,  379. 

Elimelech,  indigence,  335. 

Elisabeth,  tribal  descent,  336. 

Elisha,  deception  of  Syrians,  276. 

Elkanah,  nationality,  336. 

Employments  of  heaven,  incessant 
praise,  yet  rest  and  quiet  218. 

Enemies,  treatment,  cruelty,  em- 
ployed and  prohibited,  264  ;  case 
of  Ammonites,  264  ;  of  Moabitcs, 
264  ;  of  Baal's  prophets,  2()5  ;  of 
young  Bethelites,  270;  of  Edom- 
ites, 271  ;  enemies  cursed  and 
loved,  271  ;  treated  kindly,  and 
put  to  pain,  275  ;  ridiculed,  and 
addressed  mildly,  276. 

English  letters,  similarity,  20. 

Ephraim,  land  located,  369. 


Epithets,  opprobrious,  forbidden 
and  employed,  277. 

Esau,  wives'  names,  336 ;  settlement 
in  Seir  when,  415. 

Eternity  of  God,  his  origin  from 
eternity,  yet  in  time,  60. 

Ethical  Discrepancies,  219. 
Duty  of  man  to  God,  219. 
Duty  of  man  to  himself,  243. 
Duty  of  man  to  fellow-men,  255. 

Eutychus,  death,  337. 

Execution  of  Christ,  lawful  and  un- 
lawful, 220. 

Exode  of  Israelites,  time,  416. 

Extent  of  salvation,  all  Israel  saved, 
yet  only  a  portion,  213  ;  all  men 
saved,  yet  some  not  saved,  214. 

Extirpation  of  Canaanites,  grounds, 
266. 

Faith  and  works,  contrast,  8,  167. 

Famine,  duration,  393. 

Fast,  observance  enjoined  and  neg- 
lected, 223;  of  seventh  month, 
on  what  day,  416. 

Fear  of  persecutors  forbidden  and 
exemplified,  277. 

Feast,  of  unleavened  bread,  insti- 
tuted when,  408;  duration,  41 6;  of 
tabernacles  underZerubbabel,  41 7. 

Final  judgment.  See  Judgment, 
final. 

First-boi-li  sons  dedicated  and  re- 
deemed, 224. 

Firstling  animals  redeemed  and  not 
redeemed,  224 ;  redeemed  with 
money  and  not  thus,  224  ;  sancti- 
fied and  not  sanctified,  225. 

Folly,  remediable  and  irremediable, 
278  ;  answered  in  one  way,  and 
in  a  different,  278. 

Forces,  Josiah's,  stationed,  370. 

Foreskins,  number,  382. 

Fruit-trees  spared  and  destroyed, 
279. 

Fruits  of  Holy  Spirit,  love  and  ven- 
geance, 142  ;  gentleness  and  fury, 
142. 

Future  punishment,  nature,  203; 
instruments,  209;  degrees,  210; 
duration,  211. 

Genealogical  lists,  diverse,  325, 337. 


466 


GENERAL   mDEX. 


Generations,  number,  388. 

Gei'shom,  relatives'  names,  338. 

Gezer,  names,  373  ;  conquest  when, 
403. 

Gibeonites,  nationality,  338. 

Gifts  of  returned  captives,  amount, 
381. 

Gilsral  mentioned  prematurely,  394. 

God,  omnipotence,  55 ;  omniscience, 
56  ;  omnipresence,  58  ;  eternity, 
60 ;  unity,  60 ;  immateriality,  63  ; 
immutability,  63  ;  inaccessibility, 
70  ;  inscrutability,72  ;  invisibility, 
73  ;  holiness,  76  ;  justice,  83 ;  be- 
nevolence, 89  ;  mercy,  92  ;  verac- 
ity, 98  ;  habitation,  101;  position, 
103;  law,  104;  work  ended,  416  ; 
worship  bcfrun,  427. 

Golden  calf,  destruction,  429. 

Goliath,  armor,  placed  where,  370 ; 
head  carried  whither,  370. 

Good  works  exhibited  and  concealed, 
279. 

Gospel,  preached  where,  370. 

Greek  letters,  similarity,  20. 

Greek  terms  descriptive  of  future 
punishment,  212. 

Habitation  of  God,  in  light,  and  in 

darkness,  101 ;  in  chosen  temples, 

and  not  in  them,  102  ;  in  eternity, 

and  with  men,  102;    in   heaven, 

and  in  Zion,  103. 
Hair,  lonfr,  worn  by  men,  246. 
Halting-places  of  Israelites,  371. 
Havoth-jair,  number  of  cities,  385  ; 

named  when,  411. 
Hazacl,  anointed  by  whom,  339. 
Hazur  conquered  twice,  405. 
Heads  of  people,  number,  385. 
Heaven,   occupants,    216;   cm[)loy- 

ments,   218;    preparation   when, 

417. 
Hebrew  letters,  similarity,  20. 
Hebrew  midwives,  case,  290. 
Hel>rew   numbers,   method   of    ex- 

j)ressing,  13. 
Hel>rew  terms,  descriptive  of  future 

punishment,  204. 
Hebrews'  land,  premature  mention, 

394. 
Hebron     mentioned     prematurely, 

395  ;  king  conquered  when,  405. 


Heretics  treated  harshly  and  gently, 
279. 

Hezekiah,  indigence,  340 ;  passover, 
340 ;  age  at  accession,  399. 

Hiram,  mother,  nationality,  339. 

Historical  Discrepancies,  312. 
Concerning  persons,  312. 
Concerning  places,  363. 
Concerning  numbers,  380. 
Concerning  time,  392. 
Miscellaneous,  427. 

Hodge,  Prof.  C,  definition  of  mir- 
acle, 121. 

Holiness  of  Christ,  is  holy  and  is 
sin, 1 14  ;  blessed  and  a  curse,  115. 

Holiness  of  God,  author  of  evil,  yet 
not  its  author,  76  ;  jealous  and 
free  from  jealousy,  78 ;  tempts 
men  and  tempts  them  not,  79 ; 
respects  and  respects  not  persons, 
81 ;  angry  and  not  angry,  82 ; 
may  be  and  cannot  be  tempted,  82. 

Holy  Spirit,  personality,  139  ;  divin- 
ity, 141  ;  fruits,  142;  beginning, 
417;  bestowment,  417. 

Horeb,  relation  to  Sinai,  376. 

Hormah,  conquered  when,  405. 

Horsemen,  number,  382. 

Horsemen  or  footmen,  382. 

Hosea's  wife,  unchastity,  255. 

Hoshea,  reign  begun,  399. 

House  and  porch,  heif^t,  382. 

"  Howland  will  case,"  36. 

Human  effort.     See  Effort,  human. 

Hypothesis,  logical  value,  52. 

Idolatry  forbidden  and  practised, 
225  ;  punished  and  passed  by,  225. 

Idol-meats  non-essential,  yet  to  be 
shunned,  249. 

Image-making  sanctioned  and  for- 
bidden, 226. 

Images  disposed  of,  how,  430. 

Imagination  of  critic,  source  of  dis- 
crepancies, 25. 

Immateriality  of  God,  a  spirit,  yet 
material,  63. 

Immutability  of  God,  unchangeable 
and  repenting,  63  ;  satisfied  and 
dissatisfied,  68 ;  destroys  and  de- 
stroys not,  68 ;  abhors  and  does 
not  abhor,  68 ;  permits  and  for- 
bids, 69. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


467 


Improvidence  enjoined  and  forbid- 
den, 280. 

Inaccessibility  of  God,  approachable 
and  not  accessible,  "0 ;  all  and 
not  all  seekers  liiid,  71  ;  early 
seekers  succeed  and  fail,  71. 

Incest,  alleged  case  of  Abraham, 
281. 

Inscrutability  of  God,  attributes 
revealed  and  hidden,  72 ;  won- 
ders recounted  and  numberless, 
73. 

Inspiration,  relation  to  authorship, 
6  ;  not  limited  to  the  same  phra- 
seology, 7. 

Inspiration  of  Scriptures,  all  in- 
spired, yet  portions  uninspired, 
143. 

Instruments  of  future  punishment, 
shame  and  a  whirlwind,  209 ;  a 
worm  and  a  tempest,  209  ;  dark- 
ness and  fire,  210. 

Intellect  stimulated  by  discrep- 
ancies, 30. 

Intercession  of  Christ,  only  Media- 
tor, yet  Spirit  intercedes,  131  ; 
intercedes  for  world  and  not  for 
world,  131. 

Intermediate  state  of  man,  dead 
unconscious  and  conscious,  188; 
dead  asleep  and  awake,  191  ;  de- 
void of,  yet  possess  knowledge, 
193;  exercise  mental  ))owers,  and 
not  so,  19.5  ;  in  darkness  and  in 
glory,  197  ;  not  with  Christ,  yet 
righteous  with  him,  198  ;  in  same 
place,  yet  in  different  places,  199  ; 
in  the  dust,  yet  saints  with  God, 
199. 

Interval  before  passover,  416  ;  be- 
fore transfiguration,  41G. 

Invisibility  of  God,  seen  and  unseen, 
73  ;  similitude  visible  and  not  vis- 
ible, 76. 

Isaac,  equivocation,  26,  318  ;  sacri- 
fice by  father,  237. 

Ishboshctli,  reign  begun,  400. 

Ishmael,  age  at  expulsion,  418. 

Israel,  supjjort,  345  ;  sight,  363  ; 
reception  of  new  name,  411.  See 
also  "  Jacob." 

Israel,  sin  ineffaceable  anil  may  be 
removed,  227  ;  boundarv,  374. 


Israelites,  claim  to  Canaan,  282; 
condition  in  desert,  340;  dwell- 
ings, 343  ;  imitation  of  heathen, 

343  ;  hearkening  to  ]\Ioses,  344  ; 
practice  of  idolatry,  344  ;  repulse 
of  Philistines,  344  ;  resistless 
might,  344 ;  comparative  strength, 

344  ;  death  in  wilderness,  357 ; 
halting-places,  371;  station  where, 
373  ;  return  whither,  374  ;  arrival 
at  Sinai,  409  ;  duration  of  ijon- 
dage,  418  ;  tarry  in  Ileshbon, 
420  ;  length  of  wanderings,  427. 

Jacob,  name  derived,  315;  brought 
out  of  Egypt,  345  ;  errand,  345  ; 
mode  of  securing  birthright,  345  ; 
su])port,  345;  daughters,  384; 
family,  389;  age  at  flight,  420; 
time  of  sons'  birth,  421. 

Jael,  slaughter  of  Sisera,  255. 

Jair,  cities,  number,  385. 

Jehus,  conquest  when,  406. 

Jeduthun,  sons,  number,  385. 

Jehoahai,  reign  begun,  400 ;  dura- 
tion, 400. 

Jeboash,  reign  begun,  400. 

Jehoiachin,  son,  346;  age  at  acces- 
sion, 400;  capture,  400;  deliver- 
ance, 400. 

Jehoiakim,  successor,  346 ;  death 
where,  374  ;  fourth  year,  400. 

Jehoram,  sons'  fate,  346. 

Jehoshaphat,  league  with  Ahaziah, 
346. 

Jehovah,  name  unknown,  421. 

Jehu,  anointed  bj^  whom,  339. 

Jephthah,  sacrifice  of  daughter, 
239. 

Jericho  captured  twice,  406. 

Jeroboam,  residence,  375. 

Jeroboam  II.  coutemporarv  with 
Uzziah,  401. 

Jerusalem,  a  delight  and  a  provoca- 
tion, 228  ;  belonged  to  what  tribe, 
375  ;  burned  when,  393  ;  captured 
when,  393  ;  change  of  name,  395. 

Jesse,  number  of  sons,  385. 

Jesus  approached  by  centurion 
and  elders,  346.  See  also  under 
"  Christ.'" 

Jethro,  identity.  354. 

Jewess,  marriage  restricted  to  tribe, 
283. 


468 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


Joab,  crimes  punished,  256. 

Job,  flocks  and  herds,  size,  175; 
survival  of  his  children,  347. 

John,  identity  with  Elias,  347 ;  ac- 
quaintance with  Jesus,  409. 

Jonah  (Jonas),  sign  adduced,  155. 

Joram,  of  Israel,  reign  begun,  400. 

Jordan,  meaning  of  phrase  "  rfiis 
side,"  375  ;  time  of  crossing,  416. 

Joseph,  derivation  of  name,  315  ; 
purchasers'  nationality,  339  ;  im- 
prisonment, 348 ;  keeper,  348  ; 
deportation,  348. 

Joshua,  conquest  of  kings,  348;  of 
Canaan,  376  ;  reception  of  name, 
395. 

Josiah,  extirpation  of  idolatry,  348 ; 
sons,  349  ;  death  where,  376  ;  re- 
formation begun, 401. 

Jotham,  duration  of  reign,  401. 

Judah,  duration  of  reign,  149. 

Judas,  manner  of  death,  349. 

Judges,  appointed  by  whom,  350; 
period  of  rule,  421. 

Judging  of  David,  desired  and  de- 
precated, 228. 

Judging  of  others  forbidden  and 
allowed,  284. 

Judgment  final,  of  man,  ascribed  to 
God  and  to  man,  201  ;  attributed 
to  and  disclaimed  by  Christ,  201 ; 
administered  by  God,  and  by  men 
also,  202. 

Judicial  purpose  of  discrepancies,  38. 

Just  man's  life  by  faith  and  by 
works,  228. 

Justice  administered  by  different 
Judges,  284. 

Justice  of  God,  is  just  and  unjust, 
83  ;  punishes  for  others'  sins,  and 
not  so,  84 ;  slays  the  good  and 
spares  them,  88. 

Justification  of  man,  by  faith  and  by 
works,  167. 

Kadesh,  situated  where,  373. 

Kcturah,  connection  with  Abraham, 
.'{18,  3.39. 

Killing  of  men  forbidden  and  sanc- 
tioned, 285. 

Kindred  hated,  yet  loved,  286  ;  par- 
enis  honored  and  slighted,  287  ; 
children  slain,  yet  cheri.shed,  287. 


Kingdom  of  Christ,  not  of  world, 
yet  within  Pharisees,  136  ;  end- 
less and  will  terminate,  137. 

Kin!j;s  in  Israel,  premature  mention, 
395. 

Kish,  father  of,  351. 

Kohath,  son  of,  351. 

Korah,  manner  of  death,  352 ; 
family's  fate,  353. 

Laadan,  posterity,  351. 

Laban,  father  of,  351. 

Laish  captured  twice,  406. 

Land  assigned  twice,  412. 

Laughter  praised  and  condemned, 
250. 

Law,  given  where,  376. 

Law  of  God,  tends  to  liberty  and  to 
bondage,  104  ;  perfect,  yet  per- 
fects nothing,  104;  tends  to  life 
and  to  death,  104. 

Lazarus,  death,  184  ;  mode  of  egress 
from  tomb,  353. 

Lcadersliip  of  cloud,  nature,  430. 

Letters,  similarity  of  Hebrew,  20; 
of  Greek,  20 ;  Hebrew  used  as 
numerals,  21  ;  Greek  used  as  nu- 
merals, 24 ;  letters  transposed, 
313;  letters  confounded,  392. 

Levites  portion,  were  settled,  yet 
sojourners,  288 ;  had  stated  rev- 
enue, yet  deemed  mendicants, 
289  ;  part  at  inauguration  of 
Joash,  .350  ;  number,  .382  ;  classes, 
387  ;  dimensions  of  cities,  388  ; 
land  mentioned,  395  ;  set  apart 
when,  409  ;  beginning  of  service, 
422. 

Light,  beginning  of  existence, 
422. 

Lord's  supper,  described,  156  ;  time 
of  instituting,  423. 

Lot,  daughters  of.  282. 

JjU7.  mentioned  prematurely,  395. 

Lving  countenanced  and  prohib- 
"ited,  290. 

Machir,  wife  of,  351. 
Mahol,  .sons  of,  351. 
Maiden,  decease,  337. 
Malefactors,  reviling,  number,  384. 
Man,  creation,  158  ;  sinfulness,  159  ; 
repentance,    165 ;     regeneration, 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


469 


166;  justification,  167;  sanctifi- 
cation,  1G8  ;  perfection,  1G9  ;  final 
perseverance,  1439  ;  ri^cliteous, 
earthly  lot,  1 72  ;  wicked,  earthly 
lot,  180  ;  death,  183  ;  intermediate 
state, 188;  resurrection,  200 ;  linal 
jud;Ljmcnt,  201  ;  duty  to  God,  21 9  ; 
duty  to  iiimsclf,  245  ;  duty  to  fel- 
low-nicn,  255  ;  fear  upon  beasts, 
354  ;  life,  duration,  424. 

Manasseh,  repentance,  351. 

Manna,  taste,  431. 

Man,  own  way  followed  and  not 
followed,  250. 

Manuscripts,  errors,  19  ;  date,  45. 

Marriage,  ajiproved  and  di>paraired, 
291  ;  with  a  brother's  widow  en- 
joined and  ]»rohibited,  202. 

Mercy  of  Christ,  is  merciful  and  un- 
merciful, 116;  spares  reed  and 
wields  rod,  1 16. 

Mercy  of  God,  is  unmerciful  and 
merciful,  92  ;  his  anger  fierce  and 
slow,  95  ;  lasting  and  brief,  95  ; 
to  fail  into  luxnds,  fearful  and  not 
so,  96  ;  laughs  at,  yet  not  jjleascd 
with  sinner's  overthrow,  96;  just 
and  merciful,  97  ;  hates  some,  yet 
kind  to  all,  97. 

Meribah,  location,  374. 

Micaiah,  ironical  words  to  Ahab,276. 

Jlichal,  sons  of,  385. 

Midianitcs  overthrown,  406. 

Milton,  description  of  hosjjital,  33. 

Miracles  of  Christ,  pnjof  and  not  a 
proof  of  divine  mission,  120. 

Miscellaneous  Discrepancies,  427. 

Mission  of  Christ,  ])eacc  and  war, 
118  ;  universal  and  limited,  119  ; 
to  Samaritans  and  to  Jews  only, 
119;  to  fulfil  and  to  redeem  fruni 
law,  120;  to  judge  aiul  not  to 
judge  world,  120. 

Modes  of  representing  Christ, 
despised  and  lionorable,  127  ;  un- 
comely and  lovely,  127  ;  a  lion 
and  a  lamb,  127  ;  high-priest  and 
a  sacrifice.  12S;  vine  and  stone, 
128;  shepherd  and  sheep,  128; 
door  and  bread,  128;  light  of 
world,  and  men  are  lights,  129; 
foundation  and  men  are  founda- 
tions, 129. 

40 


Moabites,  punishment,  264. 

Molten  sea,  contents,  382  ;  appen- 
dages, 431. 

Monarchy  sanctioned,  yet  offensive 
to  Jehovah,  229. 

Moral  character  tested  by  discrep- 
ancies, 38. 

Moral  jiurity  of  Scripture,  purity 
enjoined,  yet  impure  ideas  sug'- 
gested,  144. 

Mosaic  law,  character,  431. 

Moses,  self-praise,  248 ;  name  de- 
rived, 315  ;  wife's  nationality, 
339  ;  family  sent  back,  oil  ;  "ast, 
351  ;  decrepitude,  354  ;  father- 
in-law,  354 ;  rank  among  proph- 
ets, 355  ;  veil,  355  ;  book  received, 
363  ;  outlook,  373  ;  commission 
given  where,  377;  fear  of  Pharaoh, 
424. 

Motherhood,  blessed  and  to  be  ex- 
l)iatcd,  230. 

Mount  of  law,  accessibility,  432. 

Mourning  commended  and  discoun- 
tenanced, 251. 

JIurder,  punishment  commuted, 
261  ;  forbidden  and  sanctioned, 
285. 

Kal)Oth,  sons'  fate,  356. 

Name  of  Christ,  has  divine  name, 
and  a  city  also  bears  it,  133. 

Names,  ])Iiirality,  17,  314,  373; 
changes,  17;  errors  in,  25,  312; 
different  forms,  314  ;  derivation, 
314. 

Nature,  contradictions  in,  33. 

Nature  of  future  punishment,  con- 
tinued misery  and  end  of  con- 
sciousness, 203 ;  wicked  perish 
and  riiiliti'ous  perish,  204  ;  sinners 
annihilated,  and  annihilated  ob- 
jects still  exist.  204  ;  wirked  cut 
ofT.  and  Messiah  cut  off,  205; 
wicked  destroyed  ;  destroyed  per- 
sons yet  living,  205  ;  sinners  de- 
stroyed ;  destroyed  things  exist, 
205;  sinners  consumed  ;  consumed 
things  exist,  206  ;  wicked  was  not, 
and  ICnoch  was  not,  206  ;  wicked 
devoured,  and  pii)us  devoured, 
2lt6;  God's  adver>aries  and  wid- 
ows' houses  devoured,  206;    sin- 


470 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


ners  devoured  ;  persons  devoured 
by  forest,  207  ;  wicked  and  right- 
eous torn  and  broken,  207  ; 
wicked  broken  ;  thinjrs  broken 
remain,  207  ;  wicked  blotted  out ; 
things  blotted  out  exist,  207  ; 
wicked  and  righteous  have  an  end, 
208  ;  wicked  and  righteous  die, 
208. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  his  encampment 
where,  377;  nineteenth  year,  402  ; 
dream  explained  when,  402. 

New,  nothing  on  earth,  432. 

Obed-cdom,  nationality,  339. 

Obedience  due  to  rulers,  yet  with- 
held, 292  ;  due  to  masters,  yet  to 
God  only,  293  ;  to  scribes,  yet 
they  must  be  shunned,  293. 

Objects,  difference  of  writers,  7. 

Occupants  of  heaven,  Christ  only 
and  Elijah  also,  216;  flesh  and 
blood  excluded,  yet  Enoch  there, 
217  ;  publicans  and  harlots  there, 
but  no  impure,  217. 

Offender  rebuked  privately  and 
l)ublicly,  293. 

Officers,  appointed  when,  412. 

Officers,  chief,  number,  382. 

Omnipotence  of  Christ,  all  power- 
ful and  not  almighty,  110. 

Omnipotence  of  God,  power  abso- 
lute and  limited,  5.5;  unwearied 
and  weary,  56 

Omnipresence  of  Christ,  everywhere 
and  not  in  all  places,  114. 

Omnipresence  of  God,  ubiciuitous 
and  not  everywhere,  58. 

Omniscience  of  Christ,  all-knowing 
and  ignorant.lll. 

Omniscience  of  God,  all-knowing 
and  ignorant,  56  ;  attentive  and 
forgetful,  57  ;  sleepless  and  slum- 
bering, 57. 

Omri,  reign  begun,  402. 

Ophir  mentioned  prematurely,  395. 

Oriental  idiom,  peculiarities,  14, 
14.5. 

Orient.al  methods  of  notation,  13. 

Oriental  modes  of  dress,  145. 

Origin  of  Discrej>ancics,  3. 

Ditferencc    of   dates    of    pas- 
sages, 3. 


Differences  of  authorship,  6. 
Differences  of  stand-point  or  of 

object,  7.' 
Different   methods  of  arrange- 
ment, 9. 
Different  methods  of  computa- 
tion, 11. 
Peculiarities  of  Oriental  idiom, 

14. 
Plurality  of   names   or  syno- 

nymes,  17. 
Different    meanings    of   same 

word,  18. 
Errors  in  manuscripts,  19. 
Imagination  of  critic,  25. 
Other  sources  of  discrepancies,  con- 
densation  of  narrative,    10,  29 ; 
deficient   knowledge    of  circum- 
stances, 29,  436. 
Overseers,  number,  382. 

Parable  of  talents,  433. 

Paran,  wilderness,  location,  372. 

Park,  Prof.  E.  A.,  definition  of  mir- 
acle, 122. 

Paschal  offering,  kind,  433. 

Passover,  slain  where,  377. 

Patristic  view  of  intermediate  state, 
192. 

Paul,  moral  state  ;  nothing  good  in 
him,  yet  Christ  in  him,  230;  his 
boasting  elucidated,  247. 

Pekali,  duration  of  reign,  402 

Penal  oI)ject  of  discrepancies,  40. 

People,  number,  381,  389. 

Perfection  of  man,  saints  perfect, 
and  Paul  not  perfect,  169. 

Perseverance,  final,  of  man,  apos- 
tacy  impossible,  yet  some  fall, 
169  ;  Christians  indestructible  and 
destroyed,  172;  called  all  saved, 
yet  some  ))erish,  172. 

Personality  of  Holy  Spirit,  an  Intel 
ligence  and  an  influence,  139. 

Persons,  discrepancies  concerning, 
312  ;  slain,  number,  383  ;  anothei 
case,  383  ;  sealed  when,  409. 

Peter,  residence,  377  ;  denials,  424. 

Pharaoh,  hardening  of  heart,  90. 

Piety  evinced ;  profession  a  proof 
and  not  a  proof  231. 

Pillar  of  dond,  use,  4.30. 

Pillar  of  temple,  length,  383. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


471 


Pleasing  of  men  practised  and  con- 
demned, 294. 

Poly<ramy  tolerated  and  discour- 
a<red,  295. 

Pomegranates,  number,  383. 

Poor,  favored  and  not  favored,  296 ; 
jiresent  and  absent,  3.56. 

Position  of  God,  sitting  and  stand- 
ing, 103. 

Potter's  field,  purchasers,  347. 

Prayer,  public  and  in  private,  231  ; 
incessant  and  brief,  232. 

Predictions  of  Scripture,  privately 
and  not  privately  explained,  146  ; 
sure,  yet  not  always  fulfilled, 148  ; 
divine  promise  absolute  yet  con- 
ditional, 148  ;  promise  to  Judah 
fulfilled  and  not  so,  149. 

Priests,  dues,  first-born  and  first- 
lings, and  not  these,  296 ;  desig- 
nation, 356  ;  number  of  classes, 
390  ;  time  of  consecration,  409. 

Produce  of  seventh  year,  for  the 
poor,  and  for  owner,  297. 

Promises,  reception,  363. 

Property  in  man  recognized  and 
precluded,  298. 

Prophecy.     See  Predictions. 

Proverb,  origin,  412. 

Psalms,  imprecatory,  explanation, 
272. 

Punishment.  See  Future  Punish- 
ment. 

Purchaser  of  sepulchre,  357. 

Pari  ty ,  2  5 1 .  See  also  filoral  Puri  ty 
of  bcriptures. 

Quotations  of  Scripture,  passages 
and  incorrect  quotations,  1.50; 
passage  and  condensation,  151  ; 
passages  and  expansion,  151;  pas- 
sage and  inexact  version,  152; 
passage  and  wrong  reference,  1 53  ; 
forms  of  report,  and  variations, 
153. 

Rahab,  case,  290. 
Ransom,  amount,  385. 
Regeneration  of  man,  he  is  active 

and  passive,  166. 
Repentance  of  Esau,  unable  yet  his 

duty  to  repent,  232. 


Rcjjentance  of  man,  his  own  act  and 
God's  gift,  165. 

Resistance  exemplified  and  inter- 
dicted, 298. 

Results  of  Discrepancies,  41. 

Text  not  unsettled  by  them,  41. 
Moral    influence  of  Bible   not 
imj)aired,  50. 

Resurrection  of  man  ;  dead  raised 
and  not  raised,  200  ;  resurrection 
universal  and  partial,  200  ;  Jesu3 
raised  first ;  others  raised  pre- 
viously 201. 

Retaliation,  allowed  and  discour- 
aged, 299. 

Retribution,  earthly  ;  recompense 
here  and  hereafter,  182. 

Righteous,  earthly  lot,  no  evil,  yet 
some  evil,  172;  prosperity  and 
misery,  1 72  ;  prosperity  a  reward 
and  a  curse,  1 74  ;  poverty  a  bless- 
ing and  undesirable,  1 75  ;  riches 
a  blessing,  yet  not  to  be  desired, 
175;  wisdom  cause  of  happiness 
and  sorrow,  176  ;  a  good  name  a 
blessing  and  a  curse,  176  ;  right- 
eous beg  not,  yet  some  beg,  177  ; 
possess  the  earth,  yet  are  sojourn- 
ers, 177  ;  pilgrims  and  strangers, 
yet  not  so,  1 78  ;  they  surely  live, 
yet  some  die,  178  ;  are  persecuted, 
yet  not  persecuted,  178  ;  handled 
roughly,  yet  not  touched,  179; 
their  yoke  easy,  yet  burdensome, 
179. 

Righteousness,  excess  and  deficiency 
perilous,  233. 

Robbery  of  Egyptians  forbidden 
and  countenanced,  300. 

Rulers'  knowledge  of  Jesus,  358. 

Sabbath,  sanctioned  and  repudiated, 
233  ;  instituted  for  diverse  rea- 
sons, 234  ;  mentioned  prema- 
turely, 395. 

Sabbath  desecration  prohibited  and 
countenanced,  234. 

Sacrifice  of  Christ,  died  for  friends, 
yet  for  enemies,  l.?0;  laid  down 
life  and  was  murdered,  l.'U). 

Sacrifices,  ayipointed  and  disavowed, 
235 ;  cxpiatory.and  not  expiatory, 
236. 


472 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Sacrifices,  human,  sanctioned  and 
stringently  prohibited,  237. 

Salah,  father  of,  352. 

Salathiel,  father  of,  346. 

Salvation,  extent,  all  Israel,  yet 
only  a  portion  saved,  213;  uni- 
versal and  partial,  214;  work  of 
God  and  of  man,  251. 

Samaritans,  inhospitality,  358. 

Samuel,  artifice,  99 ;  first-born,  352 ; 
visit  to  Saul,  358  ;  judgeship,  425  ; 
meeting  with  Saul,  425. 

Sanctification  of  man  through  truth 
and  through  spirit,  168. 

Sanctuary,  location,  377. 

Sarah,  beauty  and  charms,  317. 

Satan,  imprisonment,  362. 

Saul,  king,  sons,  352  ;  election,  359 ; 
death,  359  ;  family's  fate,  360  ; 
ignorance  of  David,  360 ;  journey, 
379  ;  reign,  402  ;  anointings,  412. 

Saul  of  Tarsus,  attendants  hearing 
the  voice,  359  ;  position,  359. 

Schleiermacher,  definition  of  mira- 
cle, 122. 

Science,  discrepancies  in,  35. 

Scriptures,  comparison  with  clas- 
sics, 46  ;  inspiration,  143  ;  moral 
purity,  144  ;  predictions,  146  ; 
quotations,  150. 

Seedtime  and  harvest,  425. 

Sennacherib,  army,  survivors,  363. 

Sepulchre,  time  of  visit  to,  426. 

Service  of  God,  with  fear  and  with 
gladness,  241. 

Shakespeare,  text,   compared  with 

that  of  Bible,  47. 
.Shekels   paid  by  David,   number, 
390. 

Shemaiah,  sons,  number,  385. 

Sliimci,  punishment,  256. 

Significations  of  word,  opposite,  18. 

Silion,  heart  hardened,  91. 

Simeon,  cities  and  towns,  369,  373. 

Siniconitcs,  number,  385. 

Similar  events,  identity,  26. 

Sin,  forgiveness,  all  sin  pardonable, 
yet  some  not  so,  241. 

Sinai,  relation  to  Horeb,  376. 

Sinfulness  of  man,  none  without 
sin,  yet  some  sinless,  159;  made 
upright  and  made  sinful,  161 ; 
born    sinful,  yet  infants   sinless, 


161  ;  children  of  wrath  and  keep- 
ers of  law,  164  ;  sinners  through 
Adam,  and  righteous  through 
Christ,  165. 

Sinners'  feeling,  fear  yet  no  fear, 
242. 

Sin-offering,  of  one  kind  and 
another,  241. 

Slavery  and  oppression,  298,  302  ; 
ordained  and  forbidden,  302 ; 
Hebrew  slavery  allowed  and  pre- 
cluded, 303. 

Slaves,  emancipation,  in  seventh  and 
in  fiftieth  year,  303  ;  female,  man- 
umitted, and  not  so,  304. 

Solomon,  tyranny,  362  ;  destination 
of  fleet,  3'78  ;  gifts  to  Hiram,  385  ; 
number  of  wives,  295,  390 ;  an- 
ointings, 412. 

Sons  sharing  estate  equally  and  un- 
equally, 304. 

Speaker,  upon  a  certain  occasion, 
363. 

Spices,  time  of  preparation,  412. 

Spies,  sent  by  whom,  350. 

Spirit  of  Bible  above  its  letter,  37. 

Stalls,  number,  383. 

Stand-point  of  writers,  diflFerent,  7. 

Staves  of  ark,  fixed  and  removable, 
242. 

Stone  removed  from  well,  363. 

Strange  gods,  character,  433. 

Stranger,  treatment,  loved  and  not 
loved,  305 ;  impartially  treated, 
yet  not  so,  305. 

Strong  drink  allowed  and  forbidden, 
251. 

Stuart,  Prof.  M.,  on  future  punish- 
ment.-212. 

Substitute  for  Bible  not  to  be  found, 
51. 

Sun  and  moon  ashamed,  433. 

Swearing  and  oaths  countenanced 
and  prohibited,  242. 

Taanach,  conquered  when,  405. 

Tabernacle,  location,  378  ;  prema- 
ture mention,  396. 

Tabernacles,  feast  observed,  417. 

Tables  of  shew -bread,  number, 
384. 

Talents,  number,  383  ;  parable, 
433. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


473 


Temple,  length,  383 ;  number  of 
vessels,  383  ;  premature  mention, 
396  ;  mount,  396  ;  furniture  re- 
moved, 412;  erection,  426  ;  mak- 
ing of  vessels,  434. 

Temptation  desirable  and  not  so, 
253. 

Testimony,  premature  mention,396. 

Text  of  Scripture,  not  unsettled,  41; 
of  Old  Testament,  42  ;  of  New 
Testament,  44. 

Thermometer,  illustration,  12. 

Things  in  ark,  number,  390. 

Thnetopsychism,  origin,  18.5. 

Thompson,  Dr.  J.  P.,  on  Oriental 
chronology,  13. 

Time,  errors  in,  causes,  392  ;  meth- 
ods of  computation,  11,  396. 

Times,  observance,  may  be,  and  may 
not  be  observed,  244. 

Timnah,  relationship,  352. 

Trench,  Abp.,  definition  of  miracle. 
122. 

Trespass,  recompense  made  to  the 
Lord  and  to  the  priest,  245. 

Tribes,  loyal,  number,  387. 

Unclean  birds,  number,  391. 
Unity  of  God,  one  and  a  plurality, 

60. 
Usury  exacted  of  no  poor  man  and 

no  Hebrew,  306. 

Various  readings,  value,  36. 
Veracity  of  Christ,  witness  true  and 

untrue,!  1 7  ;  received  and  received 

not  testimony,  118. 
Veracity  of  God,   cannot    lie,  and 

sends  lying  spirits,  98;  denounces 

and  sanctions  deception,  99. 
Version  of  affair,  434. 
Vessels  made  for  temple,  434. 
Visitors  at  sepulchre,  number,  391  ; 

time  of  their  visit,  426. 
40* 


Voltaire,  treatment  of  the  Bible,  27. 

Wandering  of  Israelites,  duration, 
427. 

Washington,  birth-day,  11. 

Water  of  Egypt,  changed,  434. 

Water  on  Mount  Carmel,  abundant, 
435. 

Wealth  not  to  be,  yet  may  be  re- 
tained, 253. 

Wicked,  earthly  lot,  long-lived  and 
die  early,  180;  prosper  and  do 
not  prosper,  1 80 ;  see  and  see  not 
divine  glory,  181  ;  sin  with  im- 
punity, yet  punished,  181  ;  pun- 
ishment affirmed  and  denied,  182. 

Wicked,  treatment,  hated  and  loved, 
306;  justified  properly  and  im- 
properly, 306. 

Wisdom,  profitless  and  valuable, 
254. 

Witchcraft,  treatment,  punished  and 
contemned,  307. 

Wives,  foreign,  repudiated,  412. 

Woman,  a  certain,  nationality,  339. 

Woman,  condition  and  rights, 
should  be  subject  and  bear  rule, 
308 ;  should  be  silent,  and  may 
prophesy,  309. 

Worship  of  God,  beginning,  427. 

Xenophon,  Memorabilia,  compared 
with  the  gospels,  10. 

Year,  kinds,  1 1 ;  beginning,  12, 412 ; 
fractions  counted  for  whole,  12. 

Zebedee,  wife,  request,  347. 
Zebulon,  name  derived,  316. 
Zcchariah,  father  of,  352. 
Zedekiah,  relationship,  352  ;  view  of 

Babylon,  363. 
Zerubbabel,  father  of,  352  ;  feast  of 

tabernacles,  417. 


WARREN   F.  DRAPER, 

PUBLISHER    AND    BOOKSELLER, 

ANDOVER,     MASS., 

Publishes  and  offers  for  Sale  the  following  Works,  which  will  be  sent, 
post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  sums  affixed. 


GARDINER'S  GREEK  HARMONY".  A  Ilirraony  of  the  Four  Gospels 
in  (jreek,  according  to  tlie  Text  of  Tischendorf,  witli  a  Collation  of  the  Textus 
Receptus,  and  of  the  Texts  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles.  l?y 
Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  lYofossor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.  8vo.  $2.50 

"  A  very  important  matter  in  the  preparation  of  the  Uarmony  is,  of  course,  the  choice  of  a  text 
The  one  chosen  by  Professor  Gardiner  is  that  of  Tischenilort's  eighth  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Tliis  text  was  chosen  because  *  it  embodied  the  latest  results  of  criticism,  having  had  tlic 
advantage  througliout  of  the  Codex  Sinailieusand  of  a  more  close  collation  of  the  Codex  Vatican  us.' 
Professor  Gardiner  would,  indeed,  have  published  his  Harmony  more  than  a  year  ago,  but  waited 
till  opportunity  could  be  given  for  consulting  this  last  edition  of  Tischendorf.  It  is  an  obvious 
merit  in  this  Harmony,  that  the  student  can  see  at  a  glance  whether  or  not  the  text  of  Tischendorf 
agrees  or  contlicts  with  that  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles  in  places  where  there  is  a  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  It  is  another  excellence  of  the  work  that  the  Greek  text  is  so  accurate,  evincing 
the  most  scrupulous  care  and  thorout,'h  scholarship  on  the  part  of  the  editor."  —  liVUiOtheca  Sttcra. 

"  The  notes  of  the  author  are  marked  by  scholarship  and  good  sense.  The  student  will  ftnd  it  a 
convenient  manual  for  the  study  of  the  Gospels,  because  he  sees  upon  one  and  the  same  page  the 
readings  of  the  principal  editions  and  muuuscripts,  together  with  the  quotations  made  by  the  evan- 
gelists from  the  Old  Testament."  —  Vrinceion  Keview, 

"Dr.  Gardiner's  work  has  been  well  done,  and  he  has  given  us  a  Harmony  of  great  value."  — 
Quarterti/  Review  Evatig.  Luth.  Church. 

"  By  this  scholarly  work  Dr.  Gardiner  has  rendered  all  diligent  students  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
an  invaluable  service.  In  a  single  volume,  and  b^  the  most  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  several 
and  inspired  accounts  of  the  life  and  doings  of  our  Lord,  the  book  furnishes  the  best  results  of  the 
ablest  and  most  laborious  investigation  of  all  known  sources  of  knowledge  regarding  the  original 
Bacred  text." —  JCe/onnetl  Church  Honthly. 

"  It  is  a  superior  work  of  its  kind."  —  Xational  Baptist. 

"  This  book,  the  result  of  great  research  and  utmost  painstaking,  is  well  worthy  the  consideration 
of  all  Bible  scholars."  —  Watcliman  and  Reflector. 

GARDINER'S  ENGLISH  HARMONY.    A  Ilarmony  of  the  Four  Gospels 

in  Knjilisli.  accordii:g  to  the  Authorized  Version;  corrected  by  the  best  Critical 

Editions  of  the  Orifiinal.    iJy  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Uerke- 

ley  Divinity  t-chool.    8vo.     Cloth,  S2.00. 

"  The  Harmony  in  Knplieh,  the  title  of  which  is  given  above,  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Uarmony 

in  Greek;  no  other  changes  being  made  thon  such  as  were  required  to  fit  the  work  for  the  use  of  the 

English  reader  who  desires  to  learn  some  of  the  improvements  which  modem  criticism  has  made  in 

the  authorized  English  text."  —  Jlihliutheca  Sacra. 

"  We  gladly  commend  this  Harmony  to  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  Scriptures.  The  need  of 
Buch  a  guide  is  felt  by  every  thoughtful  Churchman  at  least  once  a  year  — in  Holy  Week  — when 
he  desires  to  read  the  events  of  each  day  in  the  order  in  which  they  happened  so  many  years  ago. 
We  do  not  think  that  our  laymen  know  how  nuieh  they  will  he  helped  to  the  understanding  of  llu- 
Gospels  by  a  simple  Haniiony,  perha|>s  reads  as  we  suggested  above,  in  connection  with  some 
standard  Life  of  our  Lord."—  The  Churchmaa. 

LIFE  OP  CHRIST.  The  Life  of  our  Lord  in  the  Words  of  the  (iospels.  By 
Krcdtric  tiardiner,  D.D.,  I'rofessor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.    16mu. 

pp.  2.jG.     si. 00 

"  It  is  well  adapted  to  the  convenience  of  pastors,  to  the  ni-eds  of  teachers  in  the  Bible-class  and 
Sahl)utl\-sclio/il,  to  the  religious  iuKtruction  of  families.  It  bids  fair  to  introduce  improvements  into 
the  style  cif  teaching  the  Bible  to  the  young."  —  ISi'iUolherd  .^itcra. 

"  This  little  volume  will  nut  only  answer  as  a  Harmony  of  the  GospeN  for  the  use  of  those  who 
only  cure  to  have  results,  but  it  will  be  an  excellent  book  to  read  at  family  proyets,  or  to  study  wiUi 
a  Bible-class."—  Chrixtian  Union. 

(1) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


A  GUIDE   TO    READING   THE   HEBREW   TEXT;  for  the  Use  of 

lieginiiers.  By  Kev.  VV.  H.  Vibuekt,  M  A.,  I'rofessor  of  Hebrew  in  the 
Bfikfloy  Divinity  School.     12ino.     pp.  67.     SI. 25. 

"  The  aim  of  this  work  is  to  give  the  student  all  tliat  is  needful  to  enable  him  to  read  the  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  keeping  rigorously  to  the  plan  of  stating  clearly  and  precisely  everything  that 
is  essential  to  the  purpose.  This  work  is  not  a  Hebrew  Grammar,  but  it  is  a  guide  and  a  help  to  the 
reading  of  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  iiible.  One  thing  is  given  at  a  time,  with  exercises  for  practice, 
so  that  eaeli  point  may  be  perfectly  comprehended.  It  is  hoped  that  the  book  is  so  constructed  as 
to  enable  the  learner  to  read  the  Hebrew  text  without  the  services  of  tlie  living  teacher.  Mothing 
has  been  taken  tor  granted  on  the  part  of  the  student.  Uy  a  systematic  and  progressive  plan  of 
arrangement,  which  he  must  follow  closely  and  steadily,  he  is  lead  on  from  section  to  section,  until 
perfect  familiarity  with  the  forms  and  sounds  of  characters  and  signs  is  acquired."  —  Anthor's  I'ref. 

"  .Mr.  Vibbert's  manual  is  what  it  claims  to  be.  It  really  gives,  in  a  perspicuous  and  exact  man- 
ner, an  initiation  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  the  rudiments  of  Hebrew  study  are 
all  contained  in  these  simple  rules  and  illustrated  in  these  practical  exercises.  The  method  is  the 
excellent  method  of  Kalisch,  which  insists  upon  orthography  as  the  needful  preliminary  to  gram- 
mar and  syntax.  One  who  faithfully  follows  .Mr.  Vibbert's  directions  will  be  able  to  use  with  protit 
the  lexicon  and  the  chrestouiathy,  and  in  a  little  time  to  read  the  Word  of  the  Lord  in  the  charac- 
ter which  it  had  when  the  Scribes  expounded  it."—  Christian  Kegii'ter. 

RIGGS'S  O.  T.  EMENDATIONS.  Suggested  Kmendations  of  the  Author- 
ized Knglish  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  15y  Elias  Kigqs,  Missionary  of 
the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople.    12mo.    pp.  130.    Sl.OO. 

'*  The  amendments  here  suggested  are  the  result,  not  of  a  systematic  revision  of  the  English  Ver- 
sion, which  I  have  never  attempted,  but  of  comparisons  made  in  tlie  course  of  translating  the  Scrip- 
tures into  the  Armenian  and  Bulgarian  languages.  They  are  ottered  to  the  candid  consideration  of 
all  who  feel  especial  interest  in  the  correction  of  the  English  Version,  and  specially  of  those  provi- 
dentially called  to  the  work  of  translating  the  word  of  God  into  other  tongues." —  Author's  Preface. 

"  W.  F.  Draper,  publisher  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  has  issued  an  interesting  and  suggestive  little 
treatise  written  by  Rev.  Elias  Kiggs,  Missionary  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople,  which  is 
introduced  by  an  Introductory  Note  of  I'rof.  Thayer  of  Andover.  It  is  intended  to  suggest  some  of 
the  philological  changes  in  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  rendered  advisable  by  the  advanced 
scholarship  in  Oriental  tongues,  attained  especially  by  our  missionaries  of  the  East.  The  criticism 
upon  the  New  Testament  has  been  very  full.  The  present  is  a  work  of  the  same  description  upon 
tlie  Old,  but  is  one  upon  which  fewer  eminent  scholars  have  entered  Obscure  passages  are  found 
to  y  ielil  their  long-hidden  meaning  through  an  acquaintance  with  the  idioms  of  Oriental  languages, 
and  a  personal  familiarity  with  the  unchiinging  customs  of  that  stereotyped  land.  The  volume  is  a 
valuable  reflex  contribution  to  the  churches  at  the  West,  from  the  mission  fields  supported  by  their 
gitts  in  the  East.  It  comes  at  an  hour  when  \U  modest  and  well-defcndeu  suggestions  will  secure  a 
careful  examination  on  the  part  of  the  Biblical  scholars  now  engaged  in  Great  Britain  and  in  tliia 
country  upon  a  new  version  of  the  English  Bible."  —  lion's  llerald. 

HEBRE^AT  ENGLISH  PSALTER.  The  Book  of  I'salms,  in  Hebrew  and 
English,  arranged  in  I'arallelism.    16mo.    pp.  194.    $1.25. 

"  The  priaclur  in  ixiionndiiig  to  liis  congregation  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  will  find  it  very 
convenient  to  have  the  original  by  the  side  of  the  English  version.  For  private  reading  and  medi- 
tulioii.  also  such  an  arrangement  will  lie  found  very  pleasant  and  profitable.  We  feel  confident  that 
this  little  volume  will  be  a  favorite  with  Hebrew  scholurs;  and  that,  when  they  have  once  become 
halii  tuuled  to  it,  it  will  be,  t'>  many  of  them,  a  vatle  meeuin."  —  Bilyliothvi-a  Sacra. 

"\  liundHiime  edition  of  the  Book  of  I'salms,  which  will  be  quite  a  favorite  with  clergymen  and 
tin  "logical  students."—  Xim  /-^nf/lanrler. 

"  A  very  eiuiv<-nient  and  admiiable  manual,  and  we  beg  leave  to  thank  our  Andover  friend  for 
it." —  /'rt^tf/trriaii  Qiiartertft. 

"  The  volume  i»  beautifully  printed,  of  convenient  size  for  use,  and  of  admirable  adaptation  to  the 
•I  iviee  of  those  whose  Hebrew  has  become  adim  reminiscence."  —  North  American. 

HhiBREW  GRAMMAR.  The  Elements  of  the  llelmw  Lungiuigc.  I'.y  Kov. 
A.  L>.  Jo.NKw.  A.M.     Svo.     pp.108.     $1.75. 

"  By  a  simple  and  progressive  seriesof  exercise, and  by  a  perfectly  plain  exposition  of  the  syntax, 
the  student  is  enabled  to  lake  up  Hebrew  just  as  he  would  the  Jnitia  Lalina,  and  just  as  easily."  — 
/  vlilinhrr'n  Circular,  Apr.  15,  1K7(I. 

'•  'I'he  plan  of  the  work  is  admii-able,  and  happily  executed."—  Krformcil  Omrch  iMexviider. 

(2) 


Pablicalions  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


"WINER'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.    A  (Jrammamf  tlie  Mioin  of  tlip  Npw  Tes- 

tiiini'iit :  i)n'i)ar«'il  as  a  >Si)li(l  I'.asis  fur  the  liitfri)n'tatiiin  of  tlif  New  TfstanK'nt. 

iJy  l)u.  OKDUcjii  15i:Niii>icr  WiXKU.     ycveiitli  Kditioii,  enlarged  and  irufiroved. 

liy  Du..  GOTTHKB    Li'NKMANN,   I'rofe.ssor  of  Theology   at   the    University  of 

(jbttingcn.     Kevised  and  authorized  Translation.    8vo.     pp.  744.     Cloth,  S5.(X1; 

sheep,  $6.00;  half  goat,  $6.75. 

"  I*rof.  Tliayor  fxliibits  the  most  scholarly  and  pains-taking  accuracy  in  all  his  work,  especial 

attention   being   given   to   references  and  Indexei<,  on  which   tlie  value  of  such  a  work  so  much 

depends.     The  Indexes  alone  till  eiphty-six  pages.     The  publisher's  work  ia  handsomely  done,  and 

we  cannot  conceive  that  a  better  Winer  should  be  for  many  years  to  come  accessible  to  Aniericun 

scholars."  —  i*nucetun  Jieriew. 

"  We  trust  that  this  admirable  edition  of  a  justly  famous  and  surpassingly  valuable  work,  will 
gain  extensive  circulation,  and  that  the  study  of  it  will  begin  afresh."  —  Btiplist  Quarterly. 

"The  sevenih  edition  of  Winer,  superintended  by  J.uneinann  (Leipz.  ISHT),  we  have  at  last, 
thanks  to  Prot.  Thayer,  in  a  really  accurate  translation."  —  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  in  Siiiitli'n  Oictioiiarti 
of  the  liihle^  American  Ettition. 

**  We  have  before  us,  in  our  own  langu:igc,  *a  reproduction  of  the  original  work,*  in  its  most  per- 
fect tbrm,  and  with  its  author's  latest  additions  and  improvements."  —  Suv  Kntjlander. 

"Professor  Thayer  has  introduced  numerous  and  important  corrections  of  Massou's  translation, 
and  has  made  the  present  edition  of  the  Grammar  decidedly  superior  to  any  of  the  preceding 
{raoslutions.  Uc  has  made  it  especially  convenient  for  the  uses  of  un  English  .student  by  noting  un 
the  outer  margin  of  the  pages  the  paging  of  the  si.xth  and  seventh  German  editions,  and  also  of 
Prof.  Mttsson's  translation.  Thus  the  reader  of  a  commentary  which  refers  to  the  pages  of  either  of 
those  volumes,  may  easily  find  the  refc'rence  by  consultingthe  margin  of  this  volume." — liib.  Sacra. 
**  The  whole  appearance  of  tlie  work  as  it  now  stands  indicates  a  careful 'and  thorough  scholar- 
ship. A  critical  comparison  of  several  pages  with  the  original  conlirms  the  impression  made  by  a 
general  examination  of  the  book.  In  its  present  form,  this  translation  may  now  be  recommended  as 
worthy  of  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  minister  who  desires  to  study  the  New  Testament  with  the 
aid  of  the  best  critical  helps."  —  TkeoUxjicnl  Eclectic. 

"  Great  pains  also  have  been  taken  to  secure  typographical  accuracy,  an  extremely  difficult  thing 
In  a  work  of  this  kind.  We  rejoice  that  so  invaluable  a  work  has  thus  been  made  as  nearly  perfect 
as  we  can  hope  ever  to  have  it.  It  is  a  work  that  can  hardly  fail  to  facilitate  and  increase  the  rever- 
ent and  accurate  study  of  the  Word  of  God."—  .J;«c'rican  I'resbijterian  Review. 

BUTTMANN'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament 
Greek.  By  Alexander  15uttmann.  Authorized  Translation,  by  J.  IIenkv 
Thayer.  ^Vith  numerou.s  additions  and  corrections  by  the  Author.  8vo.  pp.494. 
I'rice,  cloth,  $3.50. 

"This  Grammar  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  important  work  which  has  appeared  on  N  T. 
Grammar  since  Winer's.  Its  use  has  been  hindered  by  the  fact  that  in  the  original  it  has  tlie  form 
of  an  Appendix  to  the  Classic  Greek  Grammar  by  the  Author's  father  The  inconvenience  arising 
from  this  peculiarity  has  been  obviated  in  this  translation  by  introducing  in  every  case  enough  from 
that  Grammar  to  render  the  statements  easily  intelligible  to  readers  unacquainted  with  that  work  ; 
at  the  same  time,  the  Author's  general  scheme  of  constantly  comparing  New  Testament  and  Classic 
usage  has  been  facilitated  for  every  Student,  by  giving  running  references  throughout  the  bo>.k  to 
live  or  six  of  the  most  current  grammatical  works,  among  them  the  Grammars  of  Hadley,  Cro^tiy, 
Donaldson,  and  Jelf.  Additions  anil  corrections  in  more  than  two  hundred  and  titty  places  have 
been  furnished  for  this  edition  by  the  Author. 

"  The  N.  T.  Index  has  been  enlarged  so  as  to  include  all  the  passages  fnnn  the  N.  T.  referred  to 
in  the  Grammar;  and  aseparote  Index  has  been  added,  comprising  all  the  passagia  cited  from  the 
Septuagint.  The  other  Indexes  have  been  materially  augmented  ;  the  cross-reten  iices  have  Ih<  n 
multiplied;  chapter  and  verse  added  to  many  of  the  fragmentary  quotations  Inini  the  N.  T  :  Ihe 
pagination  of  the  German  original  has  been  given  in  the  margin  ;  and  at  the  end  of  tin-  book  n 
glossary  of  technical  terms  encountered  more  or  less  frequently  in  enminentaries  un<l  gramnniticil 
works  has  been  added  for  the  convenience  of  students." —  7r<iHs/«ror'.*-"  I'ref'ace. 

"  Professor  Thayer  has  perfbrm<'<l  his  task  —  which  has  been  a  great  rir al  more  than  that  of  a  mere 
translator — with  remarkable  fidelity.  It  is  doubtless  the  best  work  extiuit  on  this  subject,  and  a 
book  which  every  scholarly  pastor  will  desire  to  possesa.  Ita  usablenes.-*  is  greatly  enhanced  by  its 
complete  set  of  Indexes." —  The  Ailvaitce. 

"It  is  a  thoroughly  scientific  treatise,  and  one  which  will  he  helpful  to  studenls,  both  in  connec- 
tion with  Winer's  and  as  discussing  nniny  points  from  a  different  or  opposite  |K>int  of  view.  I*rof. 
Thayer  has  added  much  to  the  value  of  the  iMxik  —  as  one  to  be  readily  and  cuuveiiiently  uivd  —  by 
enlarging  and  perfecting  the  Indexes,"  etc.  —  New  Enyhuuler. 


Puulicaiions  of  W.  F.  Drap^'r. 


ELLICOTT'S  COMMETfTAKY,  CRITICAL  AJNTD  GRAMMAT- 

JCAL,  on  St.  I'aui's  Epistle  to  the  (Jahitiaiis.     Witli  an  Iiitioductoi y  ^lotieu 

by  C.  E.  Stowe,  I'rol'essor  in  Andover  Tlieological  ijeminary.    8vo.    pp.  183 

S1.50. 

The  Commenf.Trics  of  Prof.  Ellicott  supply  an  urpont  wnnt  in  tlicir  sphere  of  criticism.  Prof. 
Stowe  says  of  them,  in  his  Notice:  "  It  is  tlie  crowning  excellence  of  these  Commentaries  that 
they  arc  exactly  what  they  profess  to  be,  crilicitl  and  ijrammatical,  and  tlicrelore,  in  the  best 
sense  of  the  term, '^T<'{;c^^c«/. Ills  resnlts  are  worthy  of  all  confidence.  He  is  more  care- 
ful llian  Ti.sclieudorf,  slower  and  more  steadily  deliberate  than  Alford,  and  more  patiently 
hiborious  than  any  other  living  New  Testament  critic,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Tregel- 
Ijs." 

"  They  [Ellicotl's  Commentaries]  have  set  the  first  example,  in  this  cor'il.y,  \_  nglcnd]  of  a 
tiorough  and  fearlt'Bs  examination  of  the  grammatical  and  philological  requirements  oi"  every 
T  Old  of  the  sacred  text.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  superior  to  them,  in  their  ov:i  particular 
line,  in  Germany;  and  they  add,  what,  alas!  is  so  seldom  found  in  that  com  v,  profound 
r  rverence  for  the  matter  and  subjects  on  which  the  author  is  laboring;  nor  .o  their  value 
lessened  by  Mr.  Ellicott's  having  confined  himself  for  the  most  part  to  one  department  of  a 
tsjmmentator's  work  —  the  graiiiinatical  and  philological."  —  Deun  Alford. 

"  The  cri(i"c(rf  part  is  devoted  to  the  settling  of  tlie  text,  and  this  is  admirably  done,  with  a 
^bor,  skill,  and  conscientiousness  unsurpassed." —  liiij,  Sacra. 

"  We  have  never  met  with  a  learned  commentary  on  any  book  of  the  New  Testament  so 
yearly  perfect  in  every  respect  as  the  'Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ualali:ins.'  by  Prof. 
Ellicott,  of  King's  College,  London,  —  learned,  devout,  and  orthodox."  -  liuleifpmlent. 

"  We  would  recommend  all  scholars  of  the  original  Gcriptnres  who  seek  directness,  Inmii-oiis 
•Oievity,  the  alisence  of  everything  im  levant  to  strict  gnimmatienl  inquiry,  « ith  a  eoneise  unil 
i?ct  very  complete  view  of  the  opinions  of  others,  to  jiosbcss  themselves  of  Ellicott's  Commeu- 
Cftries."  —  American  Vresiiiiterian. 

COas:MENT?AHY  ON  EPHESIjiJSrS.    8»o.    vr- r9C.  .  $1.50. 
COMMENTARY  ON  THESSALONIANS.    8vo.    pp.  171.    $1.50. 
COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.    ?vo.    ?2.00. 
COMMENTARY   ON    PHILIPPIANS,    COLOSSIANS,    ANP 

PHILEMON.    S2.00. 

TUE  S1:T  ill  livf  vo!.".,  o;i  H::e  paper,  e.\tra  clotli,  bevelled,  gilt  tops.    .SIO.OO. 

THE  SEi  ill  two  vols.,  black  cloth  $  8.00. 

b:endee.3o:t  o:j  the  minor  prophets,    the  book 

OK  THE  TWELVK  .MI.NUU  1  la»rUET.S.  Translated  fiom  the  Oii{;inal 
Hebrew.  With  a  Comnioiitary,  Ci  ilica),  J'hilo!o;;ieal,  and  Excgctical.  By 
E.  UKNnEi:.s()N,  I)  1>.  With  a  Biographicnl  Sketch  of  the  Author,  by  E.  I*. 
BARiM)Wfi,  Hitchcock  I'rofessor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  8vo. 
pp.  490.    $  3.50. 

"  This  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Proplii  t",  like  that  on  the  Prophecy  of  Isaioh,  has  been 
highly  and  deservedly  esti  lined  liy  profV  s.^i<inal  scholars,  and  has  been  of  great  fcrviee  to  the 
vorking  ministry.  We  arc  happy  to  welcome  it  ill  nn  American  edition,  very  neatly  printed." 
-  nil),  Sncra. 

"Clergymen  and  oilier  sludcnlB  of  the  Bible  will  bo  glad  to  sec  this  handsome  American 
cdilion  of  a  work  whieli  has  a  standard  reputation  in  its  department,  and  which  fills  a  place 
that  IS  filled,  so  fir  as  we  know,  by  no  other  single  volume  in  the  English  language.  Dr.  Hen- 
derson was  a  giHid  Hebrew  and  liililiciil  scholar,  and  in  his  Commentaries  he  is  intelligent, 
brief,  and  to  the  point." —  Ilotttoii  Jivronler. 

"The  yVniericun  publisher  issues  this  valuable  work  with  the  consent  and  opprobation  of  the 
author,  obtained  from  himself  before  his  death.  It  is  i>ublished  in  substantial  and  elegant  style, 
clear  white  paper  and  beautiful  type.  Tlie  work  is  invaluable  for  its  philological  research  and 
critical  acumen.  The  notes  are  learned,  reliable,  anil  practical,  and  the  volume  deserves  a 
place  in  every  theological  sliiilent's  library."—  ^imrTicttn  /'m^tj/trritni.  ftc. 

"  Of  all  his  Commenlaiics  none  are  more  popular  than  his  Ijook  of  the  Minor  Prophets."^ 
Clin»li<tn  (»Mrr,r. 

"  This  ia  probably  the  licst  Commentary  extant  on  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  work  is  worthy 
•f  a  place  in  the  library  uf  every  scholar  and  every  diligent  and  earnest  reader  of  tlie  Uiblc"'"- 
iSiritlian  Chronicle. 

2 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


Hl!.J\'DERSON'3    JEREMIAH    AND    LAMENTATIONS.     The 

ISook  ol  tlio  l'ro])li('t  Jori'iuiali  and  that,  of  the  LamcntutiDiis,  translated 

from  the  original  liebrew;  witli  a  Cumnicutury  Critical,  I'hilological,  and 

Exegetical.    By  !•>.  Uenueiison,  li.\)     8vo.   pp.  315.    $2.50. 

"  This  Commentary,  wliicli  lias  bei'n  before  tlie  public  for  some  years,  like  tlint  of  Isaiah  and 

the  Minor  Prophets,  combines   learning  and   clearness,  pliilologieul   researeli,  critiejl   taste 

sound  judgment,  and  pure  devotion.     An  introductory  dins,  rtation,  brief,  liut  luminons  and 

instructive,  prepares  the  reader  for  an  appi'eciative  stticiy  of  the  work.    The  translation,  per- 

liajjs,  sometimes  unnecessarily  deviates  from  the  Engli-^h  version.    It  is  printeil  in  the  clear 

&cd  elegant  style  f<»r  whicli  the  Andover  press  is  distingtiiBlied."  —  KvaitueUcat  (Jutirterly. 

"  Dr.  llenderson  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  modern  biblical  critics,  and  is  known  in  thi» 
country  ehietly  by  his  translations  ond  commentaries  on  Isuiah  and  on  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets.  One  of  the  leading  features  of  his  mode  of  treating  Scripture  is  his  happy  blendinjf 
of  tLxtual  with  exegetical  comment.  His  treatise  on  Jeremiah  i^  well  worthy  by  its  elevated 
scholarsliip  to  take  a  place  side  by  side  with  the  commentaries  of  Bishop  Ellicott  and  of  Pro- 
'"e^sor  Murphy,  also  issued  by  .Mr.  Draper."  —  Publisher's  Circular,  Oct.  I.  l.Sti8. 

HENDERSON'S  EZEKIEL.  The  Book  of  the  Prophet  Kzekiel,  trans- 
lated from  the  original  llcbrew;  with  a  Commentary  Critical,  I'hilological, 
and  Exegetical.     By  E.  llenderson,  D.D.    8vo.    pp.  228.    Trice,  S2.00. 

"  This  Commentary  treats  the  greatest,  save  one,  of  the  Evangelical  Prophets  after  his  own 
spirit.  It  is  full  of  the  tulness  of  the  Gospel.  His  notes  deal  freely  with  thL'  original  text,  and 
will  be  found  Very  helpful  to  the  real  student  of  these  sacred  tymhrAn."  —  Zion's  Herald. 

"  Tiiis  Commentary,  like  that  on  the  Minor  Prophets  aud  other  books  ot  the  Old  Testament, 
by  the  same  author,  is  very  satisfactory.  On  every  page  it  gives  evidence  of  careful  research 
and  critical  scholarship.  It  avoids  all  fanciful  interpretation;  its  expositions  are  marked  by 
practical  good  sense  "  —  Erangelicnl  Quarterly  Review,  Pa. 

MURPHY'S    GENESIS.     Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the 
Book  of  Genesis;  witli  a  new  Translation.    By  James  G.  Muuphy,  LL.D., 
T.C.D.     Witli  a  I'reface  by  J.  P.  Thompson,  D.D.,  of  Kew  York.    8vo. 
pp.  535.    I'rice,  $3.50. 
"  The  most  valuable  contribution  that  has  for  a  long  time  been  made  to  the  many  aids  for  the 
critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  Mr.  Draper's  republication  of  Dr.  Murphy  on  Genesis, 
in  one  octavo  volume.    Dr.  Murphy  is  oneofthc  Professors  of  the  Assembly's  College  at  Belfast, 
and  adds  to  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Ucbrew,  and  of  the  science  of  interpretation,  great 
common  sense,  genuine  wit,  and  a-lmirabie  power  of  expression.     IL  nee  his  commentary  is 
racy  and  readable,  os  well  as  reliable.     No  volume  will  be  more  useful  to  those  who  have  been 
troubled  by  the  Colenso  criticisms:  and  no  man  has  pricked  the  bubble  of  that  inflated  bishop 
with  a  more  effectual  and  relieving  wound  than  Dr.  Murphy.     It  is  a  good  deal  to  say  of  a  com- 
mentary, but  we  soy  it  in  nil  sincerity,  that  this  volume  furnishes  about  as  fascinating  work  for 
one's  hours  tor  reading,  as  any  volume  of  the  day,  in  any  department  of  literature;  while  its 
general  inffiiencc  will  be  sulntary,  and  efTeetive  for  the  truth." —  Couyrcijatiomtlist. 

MURPHY-S    EXODUS.    Svo.  pp.385.    Price,  S3.00. 

"  Thus  far  nothing  has  appeared  in  this  country  for  halt  a  century  on  the  first  two  bixiks  ol 
the  Pentateuch  so  valuable  us  the  present  two  volumes."  (On  Genesis  and  Exodus  )  His 
style  is  lucid,  animated,  and  oflen  eloquent.  IIis  pages  afford  golden  suggestions  and  key- 
thoughts Some  of  the  laws  of  interpretation  ore  stated  » ith  so  fresh  and  natural  a  clear- 
ness iind  force  that  they  will  permanently  stand."  —  Jhi/iO'lisI  (Jiinrterlii. 

"I  feel  that  I  am  richer  for  having  it  on  iny  shelf  <jf  Christian  armory.  I  wisli  every  one  of 
niy  brethren  in  the  ministry  Imd  the  same  joy;  onil  few  need  be  deprived  of  it,  for  the  book* 
»re  viry  cheap."  — AVr.  //.  f.  yi.-li.  D.D. 

"  Prof.  Murphy's  Commentary  on  Genesis  has  been  published  long  enough  t  >  have  secured 
the  highest  reputation  fur  echolarrhip,  resi'arch,  and  sound  judgment.  This  volume  on 
Kxodus  takes  it  place  in  the  same  rank,  and  will  increase  rather  than  diminish  its  oullior'a 
reputation  among  scholars."  —  .Valional  Ua/ilnt. 

"  This  is  the  second  volume  of  the  ablest  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  that  has  yet  fallen 
into  our  hands."—  Tlie  IWellii  /'resf. 

"  By  its  originality  and  critical  accuracy  is  must  cnmnmnd  the  high  reimrd  of  the  seholnr  and 
theolc.gian,  whilst  tin-  ease  and  grace  of  its  style,  the  judiciousness  with  which  it  aelecis  iinil 
unfolds  its  many  subjects  of  discussion,  will  be  sure  to  Qz  and  reward  the  attention  of  tlir 
general  student."  —  Z'A<  LuUieran, 


PuhlicM'dons  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


COMMElSrTATlT  ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.    By 

MusiiS    Stuai:t,    late    Processor  of  Sacred    Literature   in   the  Tlieoloj^ical 

Semiuary  at  Aisdover.    Third  Edition.     Edited  and  revised  by  I'UOF.  il.  D. 

C.  HoBBiNS.    12mo.    pp.  544.    S2.25. 

"His  Commentary  on  the  Romans  is  the  most  elaborate  of  all  his  works.  It  has  elieited  more 
discussion  than  any  of  his  other  exegutical  volumes.  It  is  the  result  of  lo!ig  eontinued,  patient 
thought.  It  expresses,  in  clear  style,  his  maturest  conclusions.  It  has  the  animating  influence 
of  an  original  treatise,  written  on  a  novel  plan,  and  under  a  sense  of  personal  respouiiihility. 
Regarding  it  in  all  its  relations,  its  antecedents  ami  consequents,  we  pronounce  it  the  most 
important  Commi  ntary  which  has  appeared  in  this  country  on  this  Epistle." —  Bib.  Stwra. 

'•  We  heiirtiiy  conimend  this  work  to  all  students  of  tile  Bible.  The  production  of  one  of  the 
liist  Biblicnl  sebolurs  of  our  age,  on  the  most  important  of  all  the  doctrinal  boiiks  of  the  New 
Te^talllent,  it  deserves  the  careful  study,  not  only  of  those  who  agree  with  Prof.  Stuart  in  hig 
theological  and  exegctical  principles,  but  of  those  who  earnestly  dissent  from  some  of  his 
views  in  both  respects."  —  iValchman  itnd  JU'Jli'cfor. 

"This  contribution  by  Prof.  Stuart  has  justly  taken  a  high  place  among  the  Commentaries 
oil  the  Kpistle  to  the  iiomans,  and,  with  his  other  works,  will  always  be  held  in  high  cstiuiatioh 
iiy  the  student  of  the  Sacred  Scriptuics."  —  Aew  I'oik  Observer. 

COMMENTARY    ON    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS. 

l!y  I'uoi''.  M   .Stuaiit.    Third  Eilition.    Edited  and  revised  by  I'lioF.  It.  D.  C. 

lioum^s.     12nio.    pp.  575.    $2.25. 

"  It  is  a  rich  treasure  for  the  student  of  the  original.  Aa  a  cninmentntor.  Prof.  Stnart  was 
especially  arduous  and  faithful  in  following  up  the  thought  and  disphiying  the  connection  of  a 
passage,  and  bis  work  as  a  scholar  will  bear  comparison  with  any  that  have  since  appeared  on 
cither  side  of  the  Atlantic."  —  Anirriran  Preslji/terian. 

"  This  Commentary  is  classical,  both  as  to  its  literary  and  its  theological  merits.  The  cditio.i 
belbie  lis  is  very  skilfully  edited,  by  Professor  Robbins,  and  gives  in  full  Dr.  Stuart's  text,  with 
adililiuns  bringing  it  down  to  the  present  day."—  A'/'wcoi'"/  Itvcnnler. 

"  Wc  have  always  regarded  Ibis  excellent  Coniiiicntary  us  the  happiest  effort  of  the  late 
Andover  Professor.  It  seems  to  us  well-nigh  to  exhaust  the  subjects  which  the  author  compre- 
hended in  his  plan."  —  BoMon  Recorder. 

"  It  is  from  the  mind  and  heart  of  an  eminent  Biblical  scholar,  whose  labors  in  the  cause  of 
sacred  learning  will  not  soon  be  forgotten." —  Christian  Ubscricr. 

COMMENTARY   ON    THE  BOOK  OP  PROVERBS.     T.y  Prop. 

.SI.  .'iTL'AitT.     121110.    pp.  432.     81.75. 

"  This  is  the  last  work  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Stuart  Both  this  Commentary  and  the  one 
preceding  it,  on  Eccleeiastes,  exhibit  a  mellowness  of  spirit  which  savors  of  the  good  man  ripen- 
ing for  heaven;  and  the  style  is  more  condensed,  and,  in  that  respect,  more  agreeable,  than  in 
some  of  the  works  which  were  written  in  the  unabated  freshness  and  exuberant  vigor  of  his 
mind.  In  learning  and  critical  acumen  they  arc  equal  to  his  furmer  works.  No  ICnglish 
reader,  we  venture  to  say,  can  elsewhere  find  so  complete  a  philological  exposition  of  tlicie  two 
imiiortaiit  books  of  the  Old  Testament."  —  JJiJ,.  ^iwj <i.  ^ 

COMMENTARY  ON  ECCLESIASTES.  Ly  Mosics  Stuart,  late 
Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theoloi;ical  Seminary  at  Andover. 
Second  Edition.  Edited  and  revised  by  K.  D.  C.  Ronnixs,  I'rofessor  in  Mid- 
diebiiry  College.     12nio.    $1.50 

The  Intrftdiii'lion  discusses  the  general  nature  of  the  book;  its  special  design  and  method, 
il'.rllMn.  untbiiiity,  credit,  and  general  hisli.r.v  ;  ancient  and  modern  versions,  and  commentaries. 

Till'  <  iimmeiitary  is  .•.Ijielly  ami  minutely  exegctical. 

STUART'S  MISCELLANIES.    i)i>.  309.    12ino.  iSl.OO. 

Cii.NTENTs.  — I.  Letters  to  Dr.  Chimniiig  on  the  Tiinily.— II.  Two  Sermons  on  the  Atone^ 
meiil.— III.  Siimiiiieiital  Sernion  on  the  Laiiib  ot  God.  — I V.  Dedienlion  Sermon.  —  Real 
Chri'liiiMily  —V.  Letter  to  Dr.  Ibanniiig  on  Religious  l.iberly.  —  VI.  Supplementary  Notes 
Olid  1'io.l^eiiptH. 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  APOCALYPSE.  2  v;.lg.  ?v...  pp.  ::4. 
5  1 1,     .j.'i.ln. 

CRITICAL  mSTOilY  AND  DEPEKCi::  Oi''  THE  OLD  TE  i  J-A 
MEJST  CANON.    12nio     nt.iM.    $1.75. 

3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


ttC'D  l; 


^ 


.n« 


TdC'Ott 


Pnm^^ 


^'0 


^e    9^.13 


BECD  ID-URC 

u  ■  J  l.DUffi 

yUL  27  1984 


-P.V 

ta^ 


SEP  I  8  •■ 
MAR   19 


iorm  L9-50m-4,'61(B8994s4)444 


AA    000  619  785    9 


3  1158  00847  674 


•i  k 


